BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Bill to be read a Second time on Tuesday 6 September.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 13 July 2011, of the Mull of Kintyre Review: An independent Review to examine all available evidence relating to the findings of the Board of Inquiry into the fatal accident at the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

Contingencies Fund Account 2010-11

Ordered,
	That there be laid before this House an Account of the Contingencies Fund, 2010-11, showing—
	(1) a Statement of Financial Position;
	(2) a Statement of Cash Flows; and
	(3) Notes to the Account; together with the Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Smallholder Farmers (Climate Change)

Caroline Lucas: How much and what proportion of his Department’s funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation projects it has provided to smallholder farmers in the last 12 months.

Stephen O'Brien: Smallholder farmers are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Fifty per cent. of the United Kingdom’s £1.5 billion fast-start commitment will help developing countries to adapt to it, and a significant share will benefit smallholder farmers. In Kenya, for instance, we support research on improved early warning so that farmers can adjust their cropping strategies to increase production.

Caroline Lucas: Two weeks ago 20 pastoralists were killed in central Somalia following a dispute about access to water for their livestock, and people are starving and dying now as a result of the terrible drought and famine in the horn of Africa. Will the Minister press for a specific day to be set aside for discussion of smallholder farmers and food security at the upcoming COP 17, the 17th United Nations conference on climate change?

Stephen O'Brien: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, we do not control the agenda, but she has made a powerful representation—which others will hear—in suggesting that priority should be given to the plight of smallholder farmers at that important meeting. In particular, it must be ensured that the cause of disputes which can get in the way of humanitarian aid is not perpetuated.

Dan Byles: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the possibility of using his own Department’s expertise to advise United Kingdom farmers on climate change mitigation?

Stephen O'Brien: Read-across does take place when a huge commitment is made to research enabling DFID to help smallholder farmers. For instance, the Foresight report, which was commissioned by the Government, benefited from a great deal of expertise drawn from UK farmers. The result has been of mutual benefit, which is another reason for concluding that the aid programme is in our mutual interests.

Rushanara Ali: Does the Minister agree that most climate-related finance should take the form of grants rather than loans? That is only fair to people in developing countries who suffer from the effects of climate change but who, in the main, did not cause it. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of our climate-related finance takes the form of loans rather than grants?

Stephen O'Brien: As I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise, to start from the premise that finance should take the form of either loans or grants is to start at the wrong end of the question. The first question that should be asked is “What will best achieve the desired result and give the most help to vulnerable smallholder farmers?” That said, most of the finance does take the form of grants, and, as the hon. Lady knows, 50% of it is being provided through the international climate fund to help smallholder farmers to adapt.

Burundi

Caroline Nokes: What recent assessment he has made of his Department’s work in Burundi; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Mitchell: From 2012, DFID’s work in Burundi will focus on supporting regional integration into the east African community through the British-led organisation TradeMark East Africa, which has opened an office in Burundi which DFID is funding. That is the right way for us to help the people of Burundi, rather
	than aid being provided through a small, expensive and duplicatory bilateral programme.

Caroline Nokes: During a recent visit to Burundi, the vicar of Romsey and a group of parishioners found that one of the biggest problems was a critical lack of access to fresh water. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to meet them to discuss what they found, and how aid can be provided most effectively?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I believe that I met the vicar during a visit at the time of the general election, but I, or one of my fellow Ministers, would be happy to meet him and some of my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss this important matter.

Richard Burden: The Secretary of State did not say in his opening remarks that Britain is winding down its aid programme in Burundi, a country in which more than 80% of the population live on less than $1.25 a day. What specific assurances can he give that other donors will take up the programmes in which Britain has been involved in so far?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Germany, Belgium and France have much larger bilateral programmes in Burundi than Britain. We are providing only 3.6% of the funding through our bilateral programme, but we have to make tough decisions about how we spend our budget. It is, after all, hard-earned taxpayers’ money, and we do not think it provides good value for money to have such a small programme with such high administrative expenses. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that through multilateral support over the next few years Britain will spend about double the sum of the old bilateral programme.

Bilateral Aid (India)

Barry Gardiner: What assessment he has made of the performance of his Department’s bilateral aid programmes with Indian states.

Andrew Mitchell: The bilateral aid review demonstrates that DFID’s programmes with Indian states yield strong development results with good value for money. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact will evaluate the India programme as part of its work in 2011.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the Secretary of State’s response. He has recently been urged to discontinue aid to India, but does he agree that for as long as India continues to have a third of the world’s poor living within its borders, we will never achieve the millennium development goals unless that aid continues?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right: India is a development paradox, as I have said before, and we are right to continue the programme for now. We have frozen the figure for the next four years, and we are moving to work only in the poorest states in India. As the hon. Gentleman has implied, there are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa.

Malcolm Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend accept the International Development Committee recommendation to put more resources into sanitation and nutrition, as they have been shown to be the prime cause of poverty? Half the population of India has no access to sanitation and malnutrition rates among Indian children are among the worst in the world.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Half the children in the state of Bihar are suffering from malnutrition. His point about the programme is a good one. We are looking at increasing the amount we spend on water and sanitation, and all of us are extremely grateful for the strong all-party support his Committee gave to the Government policy on aid and development in India.

Gaza

Fiona Mactaggart: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Duncan: The situation in Gaza is unacceptable and unsustainable. Perversely, the current access regime benefits Hamas and punishes the ordinary people of Gaza. In the last fortnight, I visited Israel and the west bank, as did the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who also visited Gaza. We both urged Israeli Ministers to recognise that the restrictions are not in Israel’s interests and should be lifted.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. First, I am sure that my constituent, David Cole, who is currently in Gaza would like me to use this opportunity to thank those Government officials who eventually helped him to be able to get there. However, I know that he is concerned that the number of trucks going into Gaza is about a third less than the number that were able to go in before the blockade. I am glad the Minister has already made representations, but will he specifically ask the Israeli and Greek Governments why they will not allow unarmed humanitarian volunteers to deliver medical supplies to Gaza by boat, through the flotilla?

Alan Duncan: I thank the hon. Lady for her appreciative comments. It is the case that about 30 times more cement and 10 times more steel goes into Gaza through Hamas-controlled tunnels than through the crossings. At the current reconstruction rate, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency estimates it will take 78 years to rebuild Gaza. We put confidence in the conversations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Quartet representative Tony Blair, which took place in May, and hope they can have a more successful outcome than they have had so far.

Mike Freer: Is it not true that more people enter Gaza from Egypt than from the tunnels in Israel? What can the Government do to stem this humanitarian crisis?

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is in some sense right, although the tunnels are in Egypt, not at the normal crossings from Israel. The volume of goods and mostly people—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister of State. I have been listening to the Minister of State for 20 years, and I want to carry on enjoying listening to him, and I want to be able to hear him.

Alan Duncan: Thank you, Mr Speaker; we are halfway there, perhaps.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that much more comes in through the tunnels than through Israeli-approved access points. Perversely, that is assisting Hamas, which is something we would like to reverse.

Anas Sarwar: Six months after the Arab spring, what discussions has the Minister had with the Egyptian authorities about relaxing the restrictions at the Rafah border crossing to ensure that essential humanitarian assistance can get into Gaza?

Alan Duncan: That is primarily a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have not had any such discussions, but I have had discussions with Israeli Ministers. As I said a moment ago, I hope that the representations made by the Quartet representative, Tony Blair, to Prime Minister Netanyahu can ease many of the restrictions that the Israelis are currently imposing.

Tuberculosis

Annette Brooke: What recent assessment he has made of his Department’s performance in the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis in developing countries.

Stephen O'Brien: The UK has contributed to significant global progress in reducing deaths and illness from tuberculosis. Globally, 41 million people have been successfully treated since 1995, saving 6 million lives. The UK reaffirmed its commitment to tackling TB, including co-infection TB-HIV, in “UK aid: Changing lives, delivering results” and in the UK’s position paper on HIV in the developing world. A paper on our broader approach to health, including TB, will be published later this year.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the commitment to addressing TB-HIV co-infection. When will the future health paper be published? When we will stakeholders be consulted on it? Will there be specific targets on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of TB where patients are not co-infected with HIV?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. It is very important to recognise that there has been no de-prioritisation of TB, as a huge amount of effort is being made to tackle it. That broader health context and the paper that will appear later this year will set out the priorities and how we will attempt to ensure that we are pushing on the right things to bring
	down the incidence of TB, which is falling globally. Most importantly, we need to recognise that this depends on the interrelationship with other workings of the health systems.

Cathy Jamieson: Does the Minister agree that one of the ways in which we will deal with the problems of global TB is through the development of new treatments? Is he aware of the work being done at the university of Strathclyde? Will he ensure that representations are made to ensure that research into the development of new TB drugs is continued?

Stephen O'Brien: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that. She is right to pinpoint the fact that one of the difficulties in tackling TB is the emergence of very resistant strains. We are well aware of the research being done at the university of Strathclyde and elsewhere, which has a close link with the very big research commissioning programme for which DFID is responsible. I will be more than happy to pursue that in more detail later on.

Official Development Assistance

Stephen Pound: What timetable he has set for the introduction of legislation to provide that 0.7% of gross national income is spent on official development assistance.

Andrew Mitchell: The coalition Government have set out in the comprehensive spending review how we will meet our commitment to spend 0.7% of national income as overseas aid from 2013. We have made it clear that we will enshrine that commitment in law as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

Stephen Pound: I thank the Secretary of State for that comprehensive answer, and I wish that all his Cabinet colleagues were quite as enthusiastic and as committed. But can he give us a firm date, as “in the fullness of time” simply is not good enough in these circumstances?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman, who is enormously experienced in the ways of Parliament, will know that that is not a matter for me as the Secretary of State for International Development; it is a matter for the business managers and the usual channels. I suggest that he refers his question, on an appropriate occasion, to one of them.

Philip Davies: Any Government can spend as much money as they want on overseas aid if they want to do so. Lots of Departments have very important priorities, so why do we have to have a specific target in law for overseas aid and not for anything else? Is this not just ludicrous gesture politics, rather than anything that is actually meaningful?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to this extent: we could spend this hard-earned budget twice over, because there is need that we could satisfactorily address. But the world, many years ago, settled on a figure of 0.7%, and all of us have made a promise to stand by that commitment and the Government are absolutely
	right, even in these difficult economic circumstances, not to seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.

Mr Speaker: Order. Far too many noisy private conversations are taking place on both sides of the House. I want to hear Harriet Harman.

Harriet Harman: I strongly support the Secretary of State on the points he made. Will he join me in making the point that our aid is vital in the terrible situation for the people in the horn of Africa, where there is suffering on a massive scale? Will he also join me in paying tribute to the generosity of the British people in response to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal? I strongly welcome his rapid response on Ethiopia, but what steps is he taking to ensure that other countries play their part, too, and what help is he giving to the people suffering in Somalia and Kenya?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her support. We are looking very carefully at how we can assist in Somalia, particularly in the south-central region where there is a weight of people crossing the border into northern Kenya. I expect to visit the region shortly to see what additional assistance can be given. The right hon. and learned Lady is also right that although there has been strong British leadership in all this, it is essential that other countries that can help put their shoulders to the wheel, too. We spend a lot of our time ensuring that others do precisely that.

Horn of Africa

Peter Aldous: What recent assessment he has made of the food situation in the horn of Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Mitchell: Up to 10 million people need emergency relief, especially in south-east Ethiopia, southern central Somalia and northern Kenya. We are seeing acute malnutrition in all these places. The crisis is provoked by the failure of the rains for two consecutive years and is characterised by the loss of crops and livestock, exacerbated by high food prices. The situation is unlikely to improve before the October rains.

Peter Aldous: Will the Secretary of State set out the steps that his Department is taking to build long-term resilience in the national agricultural systems in the countries in the horn of Africa so as to reduce the impact of potential crises such as the one they face?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to make it clear that food security over the longer term is the key way to tackle such disasters. It is also true, however, that it is no fault of the horn of Africa that there have been no rains for the past two years and that a serious situation has been exacerbated by that. I can tell him that there has been significant progress and over the past 20 years, for example, the incidence of acute malnutrition in Ethiopia has gone down by some 50%.

Ann Clwyd: The Minister does not have to visit the region to know what the problem is. Every night on television we are seeing children dying, the elderly dying and livestock dying—it is obvious what is happening. The aid agencies are short of money and surely we can do more right now.

Andrew Mitchell: I can reassure the right hon. Lady. We were the first people to make it clear that we would give strong support, helping 1.3 million people in Ethiopia and ensuring that mothers with babies and children—330,000 of them—would receive rapid support. The Disasters Emergency Committee appeal has kicked into play and we are considering additional support to that which we are already giving to take account of the situation that she described in southern Somalia and particularly in Dadaab, which is now the biggest refugee camp in the world.

Edward Leigh: The House is full, everybody is chattering, everybody is obsessed by Murdoch but millions of people are in danger of dying in the horn of Africa. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this is an absolute priority for him and that all the bureaucratic restraints that stop help going in this uniquely challenging environment—usually useful things such as value for money and protecting our workers—will be laid aside and that he will go right in there and help those suffering people?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend has eloquently made the case for the world taking urgent action to ensure that what is currently a crisis does not develop into a disaster. He has my assurance that the British Government are doing everything they can to help and I will, as I say, be going to Dadaab at the weekend with the head of the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. Together, we will look to see what additional work Britain and the international community can do to help.

Topical Questions

David Evennett: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Mitchell: We are delivering the results agenda through our 27 bilateral programmes and we are working to tackle the emergency unfolding in the horn of Africa. We are acting quickly and decisively, as I have said, to prevent this crisis from becoming a catastrophe. We are also continuing to co-ordinate Britain’s contribution to post-conflict stabilisation in Libya for the time when the fighting is over. Since our last Question Time, Britain has chaired and led the drive to fund the next stage of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation for the poor world.

David Evennett: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. With a record number of countries applying for vaccine funding from GAVI, what results does he expect to be achieved following last month’s success at London’s pledging conference of Ministers, business leaders and charities?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right that the conference was an extraordinary success—exceeding the pledge target of $3.7 billion by some $600 million. As a result, the world will be able to vaccinate a quarter of a billion children over the next five years. Britain will vaccinate a child every two seconds and save a child’s life every two minutes as a result of this initiative.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure that all Members will join me in congratulating South Sudan on achieving independence at the weekend. The Government of South Sudan are now planning to review all their international oil contracts. Does the Minister agree that although our aid is important for desperately poor people in South Sudan, it is vital that global oil companies pay their fair share of their profits in tax in that country? Will he ensure that DFID uses its expertise to help South Sudan to get fair tax returns from the oil companies?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right that that country has just been born and has $1.7 billion of revenues, and it is essential that the money is used transparently. Britain is a very strong leader on the extractive industries transparency initiative and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he expects the European Union to look at how it can develop its own version of the Dodd-Frank legislation that has been laid in the United States.

Neil Carmichael: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress being made on developing resistance to malaria?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend will have had a chance to read the detailed plan that has been set out. Britain is committed, over the next five years, to ensuring that the prevalence of malaria in the most affected countries is reduced by 50%. We believe that tackling malaria, which kills so many children needlessly every day, should be towards the top of our list of initiatives.

Lyn Brown: I was privileged to be part of a delegation that visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo and monitored the last election there and I was really moved when I talked to women there about their experiences of rape and sexual violence. I would be very grateful if the Secretary of State would tell me what support he is managing to offer to Margot Wallstrom, the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy on sexual violence in conflict.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The tackling of sexual violence and violence against women is now embedded in all our bilateral programmes. In the DRC, the International Rescue Committee is doing outstanding work on this specific agenda, as I hope she will have seen during her visit. She has our commitment that the coalition Government have always said that putting girls and women at the forefront of our international development efforts is essential.

Peter Aldous: Following President Obama’s decision to cut $800 million of aid to Pakistan, can the Secretary of State allay the concerns of some of my constituents that the UK’s aid budget there is necessary and is being well spent?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The $800 million is part of the US military budget. All of Britain’s aid that is spent in Pakistan, which is particularly focused on trying to get 4 million children, especially girls, into school, is not spent through the Government. We are very anxious to ensure that there is always accountability to the British public and that aid is transparently used. Those policies will continue.

Mr Speaker: Clive Efford—not here.

Linda Riordan: It is just 12 months since the devastating floods in Pakistan. Will the Secretary of State outline what support his Department has given to help rebuild that country?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is right that the floods had a devastating effect in Pakistan as I have seen for myself on my frequent visits there. Britain was at the forefront of the countries coming to support Pakistan when the floods struck and we have been very strongly engaged, not least in helping people to continue their livelihoods and in getting children back into school in the aftermath of, and recovery from, those floods.

Amber Rudd: In Afghanistan the depreciation of the afghani has sent the price of basic staples soaring by 7% in just one week. Has my right hon. Friend had conversations with the Afghanistan Government about how to improve food security, with the winter approaching?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right that across the world, not just in Afghanistan, the price of food, particularly staples, has rocketed in recent months and years. Britain is specifically engaged in Afghanistan in trying to help secure the wheat harvest and ensuring that farmers have wheat seeds to plant. We focus on this area keenly for precisely the reasons that she has set out.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Duncan Hames: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 July.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Duncan Hames: Secretly deleting voicemails left for a missing teenager, buying the silence of public figures who would incriminate your business, and publishing the confidential medical details of a disabled child who just happens to have a famous father: I ask the Prime Minister—are any of these the actions of a fit and proper person?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point in a powerful way. We have to be clear about what is happening here. There is a firestorm, if you like, that is engulfing parts of the media, parts of the police and, indeed, our political system’s ability to
	respond. What we must do in the coming days and weeks is think above all of the victims, such as the Dowler family, who are watching this today, and make doubly sure that we get to the bottom of what happened and prosecute those who are guilty.

Edward Miliband: Yesterday I met the family of Milly Dowler, who have shown incredible bravery and strength in speaking out about what happened to them, the hacking of their daughter’s phone, and their terrible treatment at the hands of the News of the World. I am sure the whole House will want to pay tribute to their courage and bravery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Does the Prime Minister now agree with me that it is an insult to the family that Rebekah Brooks, who was editor of the News of the World at the time, is still in her post at News International?

David Cameron: I have made it very clear that she was right to resign and that that resignation should have been accepted. There needs to be root-and-branch change at this entire organisation. It has now become increasingly clear that while everybody, to start with, wanted in some way to separate what was happening at News International and what is happening with BSkyB, that is simply not possible. What has happened at this company is disgraceful. It has got to be addressed at every level and they should stop thinking about mergers when they have to sort out the mess they have created.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. He is right to take the position that Rebekah Brooks should go. When such a serious cloud hangs over News Corporation, and with the abuses and the systematic pattern of deceit that we have seen, does he agree with me—he clearly does—that it would be quite wrong for them to expand their stake in the British media? Does he further agree that if the House of Commons speaks with one voice today—I hope the Prime Minister will come to the debate—Rupert Murdoch should drop his bid for BSkyB, recognise that the world has changed, and listen to this House of Commons?

David Cameron: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is good that the House of Commons is going to speak with one voice. As he knows, the Government have a job to do to act at all times within the law, and my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has to obey every aspect of the law—laws that were on the whole put in place by the last Government.

Chris Bryant: Or change the law.

David Cameron: And yes, as the hon. Gentleman says, we should look at amending the laws. We should make sure that the “fit and proper” test is right. We should make sure that the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 are right. It is perfectly acceptable, at one and the same time, to obey the law as a Government but to send a message from the House of Commons that this business has got to stop the business of mergers and get on with the business of cleaning its stables.

Edward Miliband: I look forward to debating these issues with the Leader of the House, who will be speaking for the Government later in the debate. I know the Prime Minister is to make a statement shortly about the
	inquiry, but can he confirm something that we agreed last night—that we need to make sure that we get to the bottom not just of what happened at our newspapers, but of the relationships between politicians and the press? Does he agree that if we expect editors and members of the press to give evidence under oath, so should current and past politicians?

David Cameron: I agree with that. First, on the issue of the debate, we are debating now, which is right, and we are going to have a statement in the House of Commons, and I will stand here and answer questions from as many Members of Parliament who want to ask them. I think we should focus on the substance.
	As the Leader of the Opposition said, we had an excellent meeting last night. We discussed the nature of the inquiry that needs to take place. We discussed the terms of reference. I sent those terms of reference to his office this morning. We have had some amendments. We are happy to accept those amendments. They will still be draft terms of reference, and I want to hear what the Dowler family and others have to say so that we can move ahead in a way that takes the whole country with us as we deal with this problem.
	I also think that if we are going to say to the police, “You must be more transparent and cut out corruption”, and if we are going to say to the media, “You must be more transparent and cut out this malpractice”, then yes, the relationship between politicians and the media must change and we must be more transparent, too, about meetings, particularly with executives, editors, proprietors and the rest of it, and I will be setting out some proposals for precisely that in a minute or two.

Edward Miliband: I want to thank the Prime Minister for those answers; they are answers the whole country will have wanted to hear. Can I also ask him to clear up one specific issue? It has now been confirmed that his chief of staff and his director of strategy were given specific information before the general election by The Guardian. The information showed that Andy Coulson, while editing the News of the World, had hired Jonathan Rees, a man jailed for seven years for a criminal conspiracy and who had made payments to police on behalf of the News of the World. Can the Prime Minister tell us what happened to that significant information that was given to his chief of staff?

David Cameron: I would like to answer this, if I may, Mr Speaker, in full, and I do need to give a very full answer. First, all these questions relate to the fact that I hired a tabloid editor. I did so on the basis of assurances he gave me that he did not know about the phone hacking and was not involved in criminality. He gave those self-same assurances to the police, to a Select Committee of this House and under oath to a court of law. If it turns out he lied, it will not just be that he should not have been in government; it will be that he should be prosecuted. But I do believe that we must stick to the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.
	Now, let me deal directly with the information given to my office by figures from The Guardian in February last year. First, this information was not passed on to me, but let me be clear that this was not some secret stash of information; almost all of it was published in
	The Guardian
	in February 2010, at the same time my office was approached. It contained no allegations directly linking Andy Coulson to illegal behaviour and it did not shed any further light on the issue of phone hacking, so it was not drawn to my attention by my office.
	What is more, Mr Speaker—let me just make this point—I met the editor of The Guardian the very next month and he did not raise it with me once. I met him a year later and he did not raise it then either. Indeed, if this information is so significant, why have I been asked not one question about it at a press conference or in this House? The reason is that it did not add anything to the assurances that I was given. Let me say once more that if I was lied to, if the police were lied to, or if the Select Committee was lied to, it would be a matter of deep regret and a matter for a criminal prosecution. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Anybody might think that orchestrated noise is taking place—[ Interruption. ]Order. The House will come to order and these exchanges will continue in an orderly way.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister has just made a very important admission. He has admitted that his chief of staff was given information before the general election that Andy Coulson had hired a man who had been jailed for seven years for a criminal conspiracy and who made payments to the police on behalf of the News of the World. This evidence casts serious doubt on Mr Coulson’s assurances that the phone hacking over which he resigned was an isolated example of illegal activity. The Prime Minister says that his chief of staff did not pass on this very serious information. Can he now tell us what action he proposes to take against his chief of staff?

David Cameron: I have given, I think, the fullest possible answer I could to the right hon. Gentleman. Let me just say this. He can stand there and ask questions about Andy Coulson. I can stand here and ask questions about Tom Baldwin. He can ask questions about my private office. I can ask questions about Damian McBride. But do you know what, Mr Speaker, I think the public and the victims of this appalling scandal want us to rise above this and deal with the problems that this country faces.

Edward Miliband: He just doesn’t get it, Mr Speaker. I say this to the Prime Minister. He was warned by the Deputy Prime Minister about hiring Andy Coulson. He was warned by Lord Ashdown about hiring Andy Coulson. He has now admitted in the House of Commons today that his chief of staff was given complete evidence which contradicted Andy Coulson’s previous account. The Prime Minister must now publish the fullest account of all the information that was provided and what he did and why those warnings went unheeded. Most of all, he should apologise for the catastrophic error of judgment he made in hiring Andy Coulson.

David Cameron: I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that the person who is not getting it is the Leader of the Opposition. What the public want us to do is address this firestorm. They want us to sort out bad practices at the media. They want us to fix the corruption in the police. They want a proper public inquiry. And they are entitled to
	ask, when these problems went on for so long, for so many years, what was it that happened in the last decade? When was the police investigation that did not work? Where was the public inquiry over the last 10 years? We have now got a full-on police investigation that will see proper prosecutions and, I hope, proper convictions, and we will have a public inquiry run by a judge to get to the bottom of this issue. That is the leadership I am determined to provide.
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr David—[ Interruption. ]Order. Mr David—[ Interruption. ] Order. I say to the Children’s Minister: try to calm down and behave like an adult, and if you cannot—if it is beyond you—leave the Chamber and we will manage without you. Mr David Ward.

David Ward: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a case of the—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is intolerable behaviour as far as the public—[ Interruption. ] No, it is not funny. Only in your mind, Mr Loughton, is it funny. It is not funny at all; it is disgraceful.

David Ward: What a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but perhaps we can just have a pantomime interval for a moment. Is the Prime Minister aware that there are now young people in Bradford being quoted, without convictions or claims, £53,000 to insure their first car? These ridiculous premiums are being driven by insurance companies selling fresh details to personal injury lawyers. What are we going to do to outlaw—

Mr Speaker: Prime Minister.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the problem of referral fees that are driving up the cost of insurance for many people. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has made some very powerful points about this. There was a report to the Government calling for referral fees to be banned. I am very sympathetic to this, and I know my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary is too, and we hope to make some progress.

Ian Lucas: Will the Prime Minister, if asked, give evidence to the judge-led public inquiry that he is setting up today?

David Cameron: Of course. The point about the inquiry, which I will be announcing in a moment or two, is that it will be judge led, it will take its powers from the Inquiries Act 2005, and it will be able to call people under oath. I think this is absolutely vital. As I say, there are three pillars to this. There is the issue of police corruption, there is the issue of what happened at the media, and there are also questions for politicians past, present and future.

Matthew Hancock: My constituents are increasingly concerned about the deepening problems in the eurozone. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that he is doing everything he can to keep us out of it and to urge the eurozone to act?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right that we have got to stay out of the eurozone. Being a member of the euro would take away the flexibility we currently have. We have to remember that 40% of our exports go to eurozone countries. We should therefore be making constructive suggestions about proper stress tests for their banks, backed up by recapitalisation; involving the private sector to make Greece’s debt burden more sustainable; and earning fiscal credibility through concrete action to reduce their excessive deficits. Basically, in my view eurozone countries have to recognise that they have to do more together and faster; they have to get ahead of the market rather than just respond to the next crisis.

Mary Glindon: Lord Ashdown says that he warned No. 10 last year of the terrible damage that it would suffer if Andy Coulson was appointed. Can the Prime Minister say precisely how he reacted to that powerful warning?

David Cameron: I made this point some moments ago. Of course, the decision to employ a tabloid editor meant that there were a number of people who said that it was not a good idea, particularly when that tabloid editor had been at the News of the World when bad things had happened. The decision I made was to accept the assurances that he gave me. As I have said, those assurances were given to the police, a Select Committee and a court of law. If I was lied to and others were lied to, that would be a matter of deep regret. I could not be clearer about it than that. We must ensure that we judge people as innocent until proven guilty.

Andrew Percy: This week I received another e-mail from a constituent regarding metal and cable theft. This time, it told of an elderly lady who had a fall at home and was unable to raise the alarm because the cables in the village had been stolen for the second time in about as many weeks. This is a growing problem across the country. The legislation relating to this matter dates back to 1964. Please can we have an urgent review to ensure that scrap metal dealers who accept stolen metal are prevented from doing so and prosecuted?

David Cameron: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend. There was a case in my constituency where the lead from the Witney church roof was stolen. I have been trying to ensure that these crimes are taken seriously by the police, because they put massive costs on to voluntary bodies, churches, charities and businesses. We must ensure that they are not seen as second-order crimes, because the level of this crime is growing and it is very worrying.

Tom Watson: The debate this afternoon will be vital, because it will show the House united in its revulsion at what was done to Milly Dowler’s family. May I ask the Prime Minister to make urgent inquiries into whether families of the victims of 9/11 were similarly targeted by the criminals at News International? If they were, will he raise it with his counterpart in the United States?

David Cameron: I will certainly look at that. In the statement I am about to make, I will give some figures for just how many people’s phones the Metropolitan
	police currently think were hacked and how many of them they have contacted so far. They have pledged to contact every single one. I met the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson last night to seek further reassurances about the scale of the police operation that is under way. In what was—if we can put it this way—a mixed appearance by police officers at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, I thought that Sue Akers, who is leading this investigation, acquitted herself extremely well. We should have confidence that the Metropolitan police will get to the bottom of this.

Therese Coffey: With its ambition of being the greenest county, Suffolk is already committed to a low-carbon world with offshore wind farms, anaerobic digestion, nuclear power and a recycling rate of more than 60%. The Prime Minister is always welcome to visit. Will he give his backing to our local enterprise partnership’s ambition to enhance skills training to fill the new job opportunities that will be created locally?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I congratulate her on branding Suffolk as “the green coast”. There is a big opportunity, particularly in the light of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said, in green jobs, renewable energy and new nuclear. A vital thing to encourage the inward investment that we want is to demonstrate that we will build up our skills base. That is where local enterprise partnerships can play such a valuable role.

Rushanara Ali: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he had any conversations about phone hacking with Andy Coulson at the time of his resignation? Will he place in the Library a log of any meetings and phone calls between him and Andy Coulson following his resignation?

David Cameron: As I said, perhaps before the hon. Lady wrote her question—or had it written—of course I sought assurances from Andy Coulson and those assurances were given. [Interruption.] Yes, absolutely. Those assurances were given not just at the time to me but subsequently to the Select Committee and to a criminal case under oath. They were repeatedly given. Let me say again for the avoidance of any doubt that if those assurances turn out not to be true, the point is not just that he should not have worked in government, it is that he should, like others, face the full force of the law.

David Burrowes: Can I raise with the Prime Minister a different case of hacking—the computer hacker Gary McKinnon? While I recognise that the Home Secretary has a legal process to follow, does the Prime Minister share the concern for my constituent’s nine-year nightmare? He feels that his life is literally hanging by a thread that is waiting to be cut by extradition.

David Cameron: I do recognise the seriousness of this case, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I actually raised it with President Obama when he visited. I think the point is that it is not so much about the alleged offence, which everyone knows is a very serious offence, and we can understand why the Americans feel so
	strongly about it. The case is now in front of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has to consider reports about Gary McKinnon’s health and well-being. It is right that she does that in a proper and effectively—I am sorry to use the word again today—quasi-judicial way.

Elfyn Llwyd: In these days of a rush to make savage cuts in public spending, the decimation of the police service and the hammering of individuals because of the withdrawal of legal aid, can I ask the Prime Minister to justify the following expenditure? At the beginning of last month, a serviceman from Northern Ireland asked for a non-urgent pair of boots costing £45. They were dispatched from defence base Bicester by private courier to Northern Ireland, at a cost of £714.80. Is it not time the Prime Minister got a grip of this?

David Cameron: I know that former Health Ministers wanted to hear the rattle of every bedpan, and maybe I need to see the order of every pair of boots in the military, but I recognise the point the right hon. Gentleman makes. One of the things we are trying to do in the Ministry of Defence is recognise that there is a huge amount of back-office and logistics costs, and we want to make that more efficient so that we can actually spend money on the front line. The example he gives is a good one, and I shall check it out and see if we can save some money.

Graham Stuart: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that all illegal press activity under the last Government will be investigated now, and that that will include the criminal conspiracy between the highest levels in that last Government and parts of the Murdoch empire, including the blagging of bank accounts of Lord Ashcroft in a bid to undermine him and his position as laid out in “Dirty politics, Dirty times”?

David Cameron: The point about the inquiry that we are shortly going to discuss is that it will look at the relationship between politicians and media groups, across the whole issue of that relationship including as it relates to media policy. I think that is extremely important. The inquiry will have the ability to call politicians—serving politicians and previous Prime Ministers—to get to the bottom of what happened and how unhealthy the relationship was. That is what needs to happen.

Margaret Hodge: On Monday, the MOD permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that the Prime Minister himself blocked the National Audit Office from accessing relevant National Security Council documents. The auditors considered them essential to assess whether the decisions on the aircraft carrier in the defence review represented value for money. That refusal is unprecedented. In the interests of full transparency and accountability to Parliament, will the Prime Minister now agree to immediately release the information that the NAO needs?

David Cameron: The short answer is that we were following precedent, but the long answer is that if the right hon. Lady wants me to come to her Committee and explain what an appalling set of decisions the last Government made on aircraft carriers, I will. The delay
	alone by the Government whom she worked for added £1.6 billion to the cost of the aircraft carriers. So if she wants me to turn up and not just tell her what we discussed in Cabinet but lay out the full detail of the waste that her Government were responsible for, name the day.

Malcolm Bruce: Following a question from me to the Prime Minister’s predecessor three and a half years ago, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) set up pilot schemes to provide sign language support for deaf parents and their children in Devon and Merseyside. Those have now been completed, and they were a huge success. Will the Prime Minister meet a delegation of deaf parents, their children and their representatives to discuss how that sign language support can be extended to all children and their parents across the UK?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We do a lot to support different languages throughout the UK. Signing is an incredibly valuable language for many people in our country. Those pilot schemes were successful. I looked at what the previous Prime Minister said to him when he asked that question, and I will certainly arrange a meeting for him with the Department for Education to see how we can take this forward.

Geoffrey Robinson: My question to the Prime Minister concerns the contract for the Thameslink rail programme. As he will be aware, that is of great concern throughout the House, and with 20,000 manufacturing jobs at risk, it is right that it should be. Will he confirm that no contract has yet been signed, and indeed that no contract can be let or signed until the funding package is determined? That is a complicated process.
	This is the heart of my question to the Prime Minister: given that the funding package—[ Interruption. ] Twenty thousand jobs are at stake! Given that 20,000 jobs are at risk, will the Prime Minister look at holding the competition for that funding package with the Secretary of State for Trade—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got it.

David Cameron: I know that the right hon. Gentleman cares deeply about this issue. Bombardier is a great company, and it has a great future in our country. We want to see it succeed, but I have to say that in this case, the procurement process was designed and initiated by the previous Government. This Government were bound by the criteria that they set, and therefore we have to continue with a decision that has been made according to those criteria. But we are now looking at all the EU rules and the procurement rules to see whether we can change and make better for future issues like that one.

Stephen Mosley: Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for the electrification of the Crewe to Chester railway line, which would provide a major and immediate boost to people in Chester and beyond in north Wales? That would also eventually link us to the much needed High Speed 2.

David Cameron: I am well aware of this campaign. I seem to remember spending a lot of time at Crewe station during the last Parliament, normally accompanied by people dressed in top hat and tails—some of my colleagues will remember that.
	My hon. Friend’s suggestion is not in the current programme, but we will look sympathetically at it. We want to see more electrification of railway lines in our country.

Gavin Shuker: The right hon. Gentleman’s Government said that university tuition fees would average £7,500, but in actual fact they average £8,400. How can he open the UK taxpayer to such a liability of £0.8 billion over this Parliament?

David Cameron: Let me give the hon. Gentleman some of the figures. Only nine universities are charging £9,000 for every student; 58 universities will not charge £9,000 for any of their courses; and 108 out of 124 further education colleges will charge less than £6,000 for all their courses. However, the point I would make is this: university degrees have not suddenly started to cost £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000; they have always cost that. The question is this: do we ask graduates to pay—successful graduates who are earning more than £21,000—or do we ask the taxpayers to pay? The money does not grow on trees. We have made our choice, and the Labour party, which introduced tuition fees, must come up with its answer.

James Clappison: Amid the turmoil in other European economies caused by the euro, is not it essential that this country continues to take steps to reduce its debt, and that it steers clear of paying for any future EU bail-out, whatever advice to the contrary the Prime Minister receives from the Opposition?

David Cameron: The point I would make is this: the problem is not only the restrictions of the euro, but the building up of unsustainable levels of debt. Although we are out of the euro, that does not mean that we do not have to deal with our debts—we absolutely do. However, we have the opportunity of being quite a safe haven for people. We can actually see our market interest rates come down because of the action that this Government are taking. We must keep that up, but we must also recognise that the eurozone sorting out its own problems is in our interests, so we must be helpful and constructive with the work that needs to be done.

Yvonne Fovargue: Last week, I was approached about a fee-paying debt management company that had advised its client to take out a remortgage for £50,000 to pay his debts. The company paid £11,000 to his creditors and went out of business, taking the rest of his money. I have many other examples like this. Self-regulation simply is not working in this industry. Will the Prime Minister urgently consider regulating the sector and provide the Office of Fair Trading with the resources necessary to take enforcement action swiftly so that vulnerable people do not continue to be ripped off?

David Cameron: I know that the hon. Lady has not just constituency experience of this but managed a citizens advice bureau, and so has huge experience of people with debt problems. Citizens Advice is probably the finest organisation in our country for helping people with debt. I will certainly consider her suggestion to consider whether the sector can be better regulated, what we can do to support citizens advice bureaux at this difficult time, and the issue of credit unions and how we can lead to their expansion.

Gavin Barwell: The whole House will share the outrage that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) expressed this week about the publication of private medical information relating to his son. He also said that when he was Prime Minister he tried to set up a judicial inquiry into phone hacking. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what detailed preparatory work he inherited?

David Cameron: I have every sympathy with my predecessor, particularly over the blagging of his details by a newspaper, if that is what happened. In public life we are all subject to huge amounts of extra scrutiny, and that is fair, but it is not fair when laws are broken. We have all suffered from this, and the fact is that we have all been too silent about it. That is part of the problem. Your bins are gone through by some media organisation, but you hold back from dealing with it because you want good relations with the media. We need some honesty about this issue on a cross-party basis so that we can take on this problem.
	I have to say that I did not inherit any work on a public inquiry, but I am determined that the one we will set up, with the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, will get the job done.

Michael McCann: The 45th international children’s games will come to the fair county of Lanarkshire at the start of August. Some 1,500 12 to 15-year-olds will participate in nine sports across the county. Will the Prime Minister congratulate two Labour local authorities—North Lanarkshire council and South Lanarkshire council—on their foresight in bidding for and hosting the games? Will he send a representative of the Government to the event?

David Cameron: I certainly congratulate the two local authorities. Tragically, there are not too many Conservative local authorities I can congratulate in Scotland. However, I am happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s. It sounds like an excellent initiative, and I wish everyone taking part the very best of luck.

Zac Goldsmith: Will the Prime Minister confirm that all witnesses to all aspects of the promised inquiry will be required to give evidence under oath?

David Cameron: As I will explain in a minute, there will be one inquiry but with two parts, and it will be led by a judge, who will be the one who will eventually agree the terms of reference, set out the way it will work and be responsible for calling people under oath.

Phone Hacking

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. In recent days, the whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal. What this country—and the House—has to confront is an episode that is, frankly, disgraceful: accusations of widespread lawbreaking by parts of our press: alleged corruption by some police officers; and, as we have just discussed, the failure of our political system over many, many years to tackle a problem that has been getting worse. We must at all times keep the real victims at the front and centre of this debate. Relatives of those who died at the hands of terrorism, war heroes and murder victims—people who have already suffered in a way that we can barely imagine—have been made to suffer all over again.
	I believe that we all want the same thing: press, police and politicians who serve the public. Last night the Deputy Prime Minister and I met the Leader of the Opposition. I also met the Chairs of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to discuss the best way forward. Following these consultations, I want to set out today how we intend to proceed: first, on the public inquiry; secondly, on the issues surrounding News International’s proposed takeover of BSkyB; and thirdly, on ethics in the police service and its relationship with the press.
	Before I do that, I will update the House on the current criminal investigation into phone hacking. I met Sir Paul Stephenson last night. He assured me that the investigation is fully resourced. It is one of the largest currently under way in the country, and is being carried out by a completely different team from the one that carried out the original investigation. It is being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who I believe impressed the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. Her team is looking through 11,000 pages containing 3,870 names, and around 4,000 mobile and 5,000 landline phone numbers. The team has contacted 170 people so far, and will contact every single person named in those documents. The commissioner’s office informed me this morning that the team has so far made eight arrests and undertaken numerous interviews.
	Let me now turn to the action that the Government are taking. Last week in the House I set out our intention to establish an independent public inquiry into phone hacking and other illegal practices in the British press. We have looked carefully at what the nature of the inquiry should be. We want it to be one that is as robust as possible—one that can get to the truth fastest and also get to work the quickest, and, vitally, one that commands the full confidence of the public. Clearly there are two pieces of work that have to be done. First, we need a full investigation into wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the failure of the first police investigation. Secondly, we need a review of regulation of the press. We would like to get on with both those elements as quickly as possible, while being mindful of the ongoing criminal investigations. So, after listening carefully, we have decided that the best way to proceed is with one inquiry, but in two parts.
	I can tell the House that the inquiry will be led by one of the most senior judges in the country, Lord Justice Leveson. He will report to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The inquiry will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005, which means that it will have the power to summon witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, policemen and politicians of all parties, to give evidence under oath and in public.

Ronnie Campbell: Murdoch?

David Cameron: Proprietors were included in that list.
	Starting as soon as possible, Lord Justice Leveson, assisted by a panel of senior independent figures with relevant expertise in media, broadcasting, regulation and government will inquire into the culture, practices and ethics of the press; its relationship with the police; the failure of the current system of regulation; the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians; why previous warnings about press misconduct were not heeded; and the issue of cross-media ownership. He will make recommendations for a new, more effective way of regulating the press—one that supports its freedom, plurality and independence from Government, but which also demands the highest ethical and professional standards. He will also make recommendations about the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press. That part of the inquiry that we hope will report within 12 months.
	The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers, and the way in which management failures may have allowed it to happen. That part of the inquiry will also look into the original police investigation and the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and will consider the implications for the relationships between newspapers and the police. Lord Justice Leveson has agreed to these draft terms of reference. I am placing them in the Library today, and we will send them to the devolved Administrations. No one should be in any doubt of our intention to get to the bottom of the truth and learn the lessons for the future.
	Next is the issue of News International’s bid to take over BSkyB. By the day, we are hearing shocking allegations: allegations that royal protection officers were in the pay of the News of the World and handed over the contact details of the royal family for profit; and allegations that the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had his personal details blagged by another News International title. As both the alleged nature of the malpractice and the scope of the newspapers involved widen, serious questions must be asked about News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB. Added to this, News Corporation has withdrawn its proposed undertakings in lieu of reference to the Competition Commission. That is why on Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport referred the bid to the Competition Commission. The relevant independent authorities will now have the time to take an exhaustive look at all the relevant issues and come to a considered decision on whether the takeover should proceed. It will then be up to the Secretary of State to make the final decision, in his quasi-judicial capacity.
	In every way we are following—and we must follow—the law with respect to News International’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB, but let me repeat what I said on Monday. In my view, this business should be focused not on mergers and takeovers, but on clearing up the mess and getting its house in order, and that is what the House will be voting on tonight. Let me also say this. The people involved, whether they were directly responsible for the wrongdoing, whether they sanctioned it or whether they covered it up, and however high or low they go, must not only be brought to justice; they must also have no future role in running a media company in our country.
	Now let me turn to the issue of ethics in the police, and in particular their relationship with the press. Of course it is important that there is a good relationship between the media and the police. Police often use newspapers and other media to hunt down wanted criminals and to appeal for information. However, allegations have been made that some corrupt police officers may have taken payments from newspapers. And there are wider concerns that the relationship between the police and the press can also be too close.
	When I spoke to Sir Paul Stephenson yesterday, he made it clear that he is as determined as I am that all aspects of the police relationship with the media should be beyond reproach. On the allegation concerning improper payments to police officers, I can assure the House that the Metropolitan police immediately referred the case to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Since then, the IPCC’s most senior commissioner has been supervising the Met’s work to identify the officers who may have taken these payments. As soon as any officers are identified, the commission has publicly made it clear that it will move to a full independent investigation drawing on all the available expertise necessary so that the public are reassured.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been assured by the commission that it has both the powers and the resources needed to see this through. It will go wherever the evidence leads it, and it will have full powers to investigate fully any police wrongdoing that it might uncover. The Home Secretary has also today commissioned a report from the IPCC on its experience of investigating corruption in the police service and any lessons that can be learned. The initial findings of this will be delivered to her by the end of the summer. I can also tell the House that in addition to the work of the judicial inquiry on the wider relationship between the police and the press, Sir Paul Stephenson is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him on the ethics that should underpin that relationship for his own force, the Metropolitan police. In particular, this figure will advise him on how to ensure maximum transparency and public confidence in how the arrangements are working.
	As we discussed a few moments ago, if we are calling for greater transparency from the police, I think it is only right that we provide it in Government, too. After all, as I have said, one of the reasons why we got into this situation is because, over the decades, politicians and the press have spent time courting support, not confronting the problems. So I will be consulting the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the ministerial
	code to require Ministers to record all meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors, senior editors and executives, regardless of the nature of the meeting. Permanent secretaries and special advisers will also be required to record such meetings. This information should be published quarterly. It is a first for our country, and alongside the other steps we are taking, will help to make the UK Government one of the most transparent in the world. I will also be discussing this with the Opposition, and perhaps we can adopt it on a cross-party basis.
	After this statement I will be meeting the family of Milly Dowler. None of us can imagine what they have gone through, but I do know that they, like everyone else in this country, want their politicians—all of us—to bring this ugly chapter to a close, and ensure that nothing like it can ever happen again. It is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement, and for the meeting last night. The revelations of the past week have shocked the whole country, and the public now rightly expect those of us in this House, who represent them, to provide not just an echo of that shock but the leadership necessary to start putting things right. That is why it is in the interests of the whole House and the country that we move forward swiftly, comprehensively and, wherever possible, on an agreed basis.
	Let me ask the Prime Minister first about the timing, nature and scope of the inquiry. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry today. Can he confirm that it will be staffed and up and running before the recess? Can he also confirm that, from the moment the judge is appointed today, it will be an offence for anyone to destroy documents related to the issues of the inquiry? And can the Prime Minister tell us what steps he will be taking to preserve documents in Downing street that might be relevant to the judge’s inquiry?
	Turning to how the inquiry will operate, we welcome a number of aspects of today’s announcement that clearly build on the way forward that we have been calling for. It is right that there should be a single judge-led inquiry; we have made it clear that it must be judge led if it is to get to the bottom of what happened and when. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is being set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, and that it will have the power to compel witnesses? Will he explain how he envisages the judge and the panel that he mentioned operating together?
	As for the scope of the inquiry, in his press conference last Friday the Prime Minister set out a number of areas that he envisaged being covered, and he has gone further today. I think it is right that the Government have now decided to follow our advice, and the clear views of the Hacked Off campaign and the Dowler family, in opting for a far broader inquiry.
	Does the Prime Minister agree with me that yesterday’s important sitting of the Home Affairs Select Committee made it very clear that questions about the relationship between the media and the police run far wider than what was covered by the first investigation? We must take the steps necessary to restore the public’s faith in the police’s ability to hold to account all those who have broken the law.
	Similarly, it can only be right that the inquiry has been broadened to include the relationship between politicians and the press. On the specifics of that—the relationship between politicians and the press, and the relationship between the police and the press—can the Prime Minister assure the House that these aspects of the inquiry will be very much judge led, and that those who appear as witnesses to the inquiry will be under oath? [Hon. Members: “He said that!”] If that is the case, I welcome it.
	Alongside these important questions about behaviour in Britain’s newsrooms, the police and the relationship between politicians and the press, a number of additional issues need consideration. On the issue of media regulation, does he agree that our instinct should continue to be for self-regulation; but does he further agree that it needs to be proved that self-regulation can be made to work? Will he comment on the work being done on privacy issues and explain whether he sees that as being part of this investigation?
	I welcome the decision to make cross-media ownership part of the inquiry. Does he agree with me that abuses of power are more likely to happen where there are excessive concentrations of power? Will he confirm that the recommendations made under this inquiry can be legislated for in the Government’s forthcoming communications Act? May I suggest that it would be wise for him to bring that Act forward from its currently planned date of 2015?
	Finally, I welcome the Prime Minister’s proposals about transparency. I hope and expect he will ensure that that proposal is implemented in a retrospective way back to the last general election, so he will publish all the details—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] So he will publish all the details of the meetings he had, and I will publish all the details of the meetings I had. Let me end by saying that people like the Dowler family, and other members of the public who are the innocent victims of phone hacking, deserve a full and comprehensive inquiry. They need us to get on with the inquiry, to make it fully comprehensive and to get to the truth. They have my commitment and that of my party to make sure that we do everything to make that happen.

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the helpful meeting we had last night and for the constructive attitude that he is showing in trying to get the terms of reference right and to get the inquiry under way in an agreed format. I will try to answer his questions as directly as I can.
	The inquiry will start at once, in the sense of getting the terms of reference published: they will have to be consulted on and sent to the devolved institutions; we have to draw up the names for the panel—but we are not going to waste any time with that. We will get on with it. On the issue of destroying evidence, let me be clear that once a criminal investigation is under way it is a crime to destroy any evidence that could possibly relate to it—and everyone needs to bear that in mind.
	Yes, this inquiry will be established under the Inquiries Act. As for the relationship between the judge and the panel, that is an important point. The panel, whose members have not yet been approached and appointed, must have a range of expertise available to it, including specialised understanding of newspaper media, but also wider than that. Those panel members will assist the
	judge in the work he does. As I said to the right hon. Gentleman last night, we would welcome suggestions of names of people who could bring expertise to bear.
	Yes, the inquiry is now a broad one, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that is right, but we need to make sure that we put quite a tight time frame on it, as we need to see results. It is right to look at issues such as cross-media ownership, but it is possible to spend for ever looking at ways of measuring that, and we have to be careful that we do not have this going on for years without reaching a conclusion.
	On relationships between the police and the press, and between politicians and the press—yes, everyone whom the judge wishes to call can be called to testify under oath. On the issue of media regulation, I prefer to call what we need to aim for independent regulation rather than self-regulation, which has quite a bad name now because it missed too many things. I do not want to move to a world of full statutory regulation. I worked in an industry—television—that was statutorily regulated, and it works, but I do not think it is right for the press. However, we will have to be guided by what the inquiry finds. As parties looking at the matter, I hope we do not get into a bidding war—I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean. Let us shoot for independent regulation if we can.
	On the issue of privacy, of course the inquiry will consider it, but perhaps the inquiry will also look at the very good work that I know will be done by the Select Committees, on privacy and super-injunctions. On legislation, we will do that as necessary: we have a forward legislative programme, but let us see what proposals are made.
	On transparency, I am consulting on the proposal to make much more transparent what Ministers do, including not just business meetings but social meetings. It is worth asking whether we should go further on meetings with journalists, as the police might want to do. I am happy to discuss how far the right hon. Gentleman wants that to go back: it was a slight case of, “Make me transparent, but not yet,” as he proposed stopping at the election, but let us have a good look at that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of colleagues wish to catch my eye, so I appeal to each Back Bencher to ask a single short supplementary question, and to the Prime Minister for his characteristically economical replies.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and thank him for consulting me, and my two fellow Select Committee Chairmen, about the terms of reference last night. Although there is no doubt that we need a stronger system of regulation of the press in this country, will the Prime Minister bear in mind that although it was newspapers that were responsible for these wholly unacceptable and often illegal activities, it was also newspapers that exposed them? I hope he will agree that a free press is a fundamental cornerstone of a free society, and that we must do nothing to jeopardise that.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks very good sense about this matter. Ultimately, we want not just a free press, but a free and vigorous press, which can
	make our lives miserable a lot of the time. That is absolutely vital. There will be those in the press who will be made nervous of a judge-led inquiry covering all the aspects of this matter, and I stress the importance of the panel in assisting the judge to ensure that the changes proposed are based on evidence of what matters and what works.

Ben Bradshaw: Given what the Prime Minister has said, will he now publish details of all the discussions that he and the Culture Secretary have had with News Corporation representatives since he entered Downing street? A week ago, when I asked the Prime Minister why the Government did not refer the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission when Labour recommended it, he said:
	“You would look pretty for a day, but useless for a week.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2011; Vol. 530, c. 1510.]
	Does he regret that answer?

David Cameron: What has happened here is a massive firestorm of allegations that have got worse and worse. On both sides of the House, all of us started from the proposition that we had to keep separate the investigations that were taking place and the inquiry into BSkyB. I believe that we are now getting it right, and if the right hon. Gentleman has played a role by pushing and asking questions, I pay tribute to him. He, too, was a Culture Secretary, and knows about these issues. Just as I say to him, “Well done for pushing,” I suspect that he should also be saying to himself, “Why did we miss this for so long?”

Simon Hughes: I thank the Prime Minister for his decisive announcement and for the work that he and the Deputy Prime Minister have done to ensure that the concerns that my colleagues have been expressing for 17 years, and the calls for an inquiry that we have been making for two years, have at last been accepted.
	Will the inquiry look into the Information Commissioner’s reports of 2006, and why his confirmation that 31 media titles and 305 journalists were involved in illegal activities in relation to personal information were not the subject of implementation of recommendations by the Labour party in government, whose leadership continued, even as late as last December, to accuse my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary of being too critical of Murdoch?

David Cameron: To be fair to my right hon. Friend, the issue of the Information Commissioner’s reports—particularly the two reports he mentions—really is a rebuke not just to the previous Government but to the then Opposition. We too should have made more of those reports, which included some very important detail about what was going wrong in data handling, data theft and the rest of it. We must ensure that the inquiry asks the question, “Why were they ignored, and what are we going to do about it now?”

Jack Straw: May I commend the Prime Minister on the appointment of Lord Justice Leveson, who, as I am sure the Justice Secretary will confirm, is a man of the highest intelligence and integrity, and extremely well equipped to take on the job? On the
	future regulation of the press, I urge the Prime Minister not to fall into the trap that some in the press are setting, by asserting that any degree of statutory regulation is bound to lead to an end of self-regulation. Given that Express Newspapers has withdrawn from the Press Complaints Commission, as it did in January, will he acknowledge that some measures may have to be imposed by statute so that there is a stronger system of self-regulation?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman speaks some very wise words. There are ways of setting up a regulatory system that is effectively independent, that is non-statutory, that does not have the Government’s fingertips all over it, as it were, and that can do a good and trusted job, as we see in the case of advertising standards. In any case, this matter will not now be for us, but for the inquiry, and it is important that the inquiry should look into it carefully.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the terms of the public inquiry that he set out, but will the public inquiry consider the role that mobile phone companies have played in the scandal, and will there also be consideration of the responsibilities that they may have to their clients, to protect their privacy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It takes, as it were, two to blag—someone to ask, and someone to give. We do need to consider the matter. The inquiry will have a huge amount of evidence to go through, and it will need to ensure that it has proper technical expertise to get to the bottom of the matter.

Keith Vaz: May I also welcome the inquiry and thank the Prime Minister for consulting the Home Affairs Committee on the terms of reference? He seems to have included our suggestions in his statement today. He is right to say that the Committee was concerned by some of the evidence that we received yesterday, but we were very impressed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who is going through the list at the rate of 30 victims a month, and has about 12,000 telephone numbers to go through. If the Met requires further resources, is the Prime Minister able to give it what it needs?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his approach and the constructive suggestions that he made last night, many of which we have put into the terms of reference. We will also consider some of his thoughts on the membership of the panel. Obviously, it is for the Met to decide how it distributes its resources. Sue Akers has two inquiries going on: one into the phone hacking at News of the World and elsewhere, and one into corruption within the Met—and that inquiry is now reporting to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which might take over part of it, although of course the police must have operational independence.

Nicky Morgan: The Prime Minister is absolutely right to concentrate on wider issues than the BSkyB takeover. Is it not the case, however, that over the past few years, all those whom the public expect to behave—bankers, MPs, journalists, the police—have shown, or at least some of them have
	shown, that they are not capable of meeting that trust. Regulation plays a part, but is it not the case that all those who have positions of responsibility must examine their consciences and work out how best to behave in future to maintain public trust?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. No regulatory system in the world can protect against all bad practice, and a sense of social and moral responsibility is vital, whether one is a banker, an MP or a journalist. I am sure that we can do better than the current system, because on the evidence of what has happened over the past 10 years and the warnings that have been ignored, it is clear that the Press Complaints Commission is not set up in the right way, and has not worked.

Bridget Phillipson: There has been serious disquiet about whether it was appropriate for former senior public servants to take up roles with News International. One example is Andy Hayman, who took a job with News International very soon after leaving the Metropolitan police; another is the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald. Will the inquiry be able to consider the appropriateness of that, given the damage that it does to public confidence?

David Cameron: As the hon. Lady knows, in politics we have huge levels of transparency in relation to jobs that former Ministers can go into, and we also have a committee dealing with appointments to ensure that there is an appropriate gap. However, she has made a good point, and I am sure that the committee of inquiry will want to consider it.

Menzies Campbell: The inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend involves a very wide set of responsibilities. Can he be satisfied that the proper balance will be struck in the conduct of that inquiry—that, for example, we will not allow justifiable annoyance about the activities of tabloid newspapers to obscure the fact that the behaviour, competence and integrity of the Metropolitan police is of equal importance, not least because it extends to many other areas of activity in the country?

David Cameron: Perhaps it is worth my explaining why we decided, in the end, to have one inquiry rather than two. I think that the problem with the original concept of two inquiries is that the one that was going to be judge-led and investigating the wrongdoing would not really have been able to get under way until much of the criminal prosecution was finished, so the second inquiry—the media inquiry—would race away with conclusions. That was not going to work and be sustainable, and I do not think it would have resulted in such a positive outcome as the one that I think we will see. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend has made a good point. If we have a broad inquiry, we must ensure that it gets its priorities right within the terms of reference, and I am sure that the judge whom we have appointed will do just that.

Chris Bryant: Yesterday afternoon we heard that the man who is in charge of counter-terrorism in the Metropolitan police is 99% certain that his phone was hacked. An hour later, I was shown a piece of kit
	that costs about £1,500 and is readily available on the internet. It effectively sets up an illegal mobile phone mast through which it is possible to listen to any conversation held by anyone on a mobile phone within three miles.
	As I have said, that device is publicly available. It is illegal to use it, but private investigators are using it all the time. Is it not vital for the inquiry also to examine the role of private investigators, and the shocking fact that there is absolutely no regulation of them?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. One of the features of an inquiry such as this is that the terms of reference are set out and we can agree them and refine them, but in the end the judge will determine where to go on the basis of where the evidence leads. If the judge concludes that that is an important point, he or she can go absolutely down that track.

David Ruffley: In 2003, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport asked for an investigation of the practice by journalists of making illegal payments to the police. Does the Prime Minister agree that those in charge of the inquiry should interview former Labour Ministers to discover why they appear to have taken absolutely no action at the time?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend has made a good point, but I think that if we are to try to get this right, we must all put our hands up and say, “Yes, of course the last Government should have done more to respond to the Richard Thomas reports and the DCMS reports, but we must also ask why the Opposition did not press them more to do so.” We shall all have to answer questions on that basis, and look through the reports and see what was suggested, what was the evidence, and what more could have been done. We will never solve this if we try to do it on a party basis; we must try to do it on a cross-party basis.

Tom Watson: I believe that if these measures are carried out, some good will come out of evil. I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of being able to commend all three party leaders on coming together to ensure that that happens, and I thank them for doing so.
	May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would allow Lord Justice Leveson access to the intelligence services as well? At the murkier ends of this scandal, there are allegations that rogue elements of those services have very close dealings with executives at News International, and we need to get to the bottom of that.

David Cameron: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that the judge can take the inquiry in any direction in which the evidence leads it. He, like others, is free to make submissions to the inquiry, point out evidence, point out conclusions from that evidence, and ask the inquiry to follow that. As well as wanting a broad, independent and tough inquiry, we want some early results—some early harvest—and I am sure that the inquiry will produce that as well.

Robert Buckland: Will the ambit of the judicial inquiry focus on the need to enable ordinary members of the public, such as bereavedfamilies of service personnel who have given their lives for this country, to seek and achieve legitimate
	redress of grievances through proper complaints against the media and their agents when they are guilty of malpractice?

David Cameron: That is a good point. We must keep the public, and the victims of what has now emerged, front and centre at all times. Of course we all, as politicians, have strong views about what has gone wrong, what might have happened to all of us and the rest of it, but, although some people have said that there is an element of “revenge for expenses”, this has to be about the public and the victims. Politicians must be very careful. Yes, we want a good and robust system of self-regulation, but we must also be absolutely clear about wanting a strong, free, independent press that is able to challenge and to uncover wrongdoing, as it has done in this case.

William McCrea: Given the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment that a cross-party consensus is essential, why has there been no consultation with the minority parties in the House? Do we just get the conclusions when they are arrived at? May I also ask whether the inquiry will extend to newsrooms in Northern Ireland as well as the other regions of the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That consultation simply was not possible in the time that was available to us. Let me stress, however, that these are draft terms of reference. In the end the judge must be comfortable with them and agree to them, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise devolved issues with the Government and the judge, I am sure that we can ensure that that happens.

Daniel Kawczynski: Some people find it difficult to sue newspapers that have lied about them because of the complexity and cost that that would involve. I hope the Prime Minister can assure me that the inquiry will look into how people on low incomes can be supported so that they can sue newspapers when they have been lied about.

David Cameron: Obviously one of the things that the inquiry will have to look into is how people can obtain redress from newspapers when they have been wronged. That has been looked into for many years, but the problem is that Governments have not acted. I believe that part of the solution is an effective regulatory system. If people end up having to sue a newspaper, things have gone too far. It ought to be possible to obtain proper redress through a regulatory system that has not just the confidence of the press but the confidence of the public: I think that is the key.

Barry Gardiner: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he had any conversations about phone-hacking with Andy Coulson at the time of Mr Coulson’s resignation—not his appointment—and will he place in the Library a log of any meetings and phone calls that have taken place between him and Andy Coulson since Mr Coulson’s resignation?

David Cameron: Of course, all the time during Andy Coulson’s employment, when articles were appearing and there was a storm of allegations, I had that conversation
	with him many times, because I had employed him. I had accepted his assurances: assurances which, as I have said, were given to many others. In the end, the reason for his resignation, the reason for his giving up on the second chance, was that he just felt that he could not go on doing the job, a job that he did well—no one denies that he did the job well—because of all the allegations. As for contacts, I have said what I have said about transparency, and I think that that is right.

Julian Huppert: Yesterday I met representatives of Hacked Off, who have been campaigning for a full inquiry on behalf of victims from the Dowlers to Hugh Grant. They have a range of requirements for what they would consider to be a sufficiently full inquiry. Has the Prime Minister met them, and does he believe that his current proposals will meet their demands?

David Cameron: I shall be meeting representatives of Hacked Off this afternoon. I have looked carefully at the briefing notes that they have issued, and I also listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Gentleman’s former colleague Evan Harris on the radio this morning. I think that we have reflected many of their concerns, and indeed some of their language, in the terms of reference, but I look forward to hearing what they have to say today. These are draft terms of reference, and, if they can be improved, we shall try to improve them.

Paul Farrelly: Before the inquiries have been completed, if News Corporation does not heed the mood of the British public and does not heed the voice of the House of Commons this afternoon, will the Prime Minister be prepared to present a short Bill amending cross-media ownership rules, and also addressing the absence of limits to ownership of United Kingdom broadcasters by non-EU companies and non-EU nationals? There is not such an unfettered free market in the United States, for example.

David Cameron: I think it is difficult to bring forward specific legislation for a specific company; we have got to be a Government under the law. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is worth reminding Labour Members that a US-based company is able to purchase all of a UK broadcaster because of an Act that their Government passed.

Oliver Heald: I welcome the Leveson inquiry and agree very much with the Prime Minister that our focus should be on the innocent victims whom we have heard about recently, but he will be aware that there were concerns in the House that the hacking of telephones has impeded MPs in their work and interfered with freedom of expression, which is one of the most deeply felt and important aspects of our work. The Standards and Privileges Committee produced a report—its 14th report—on this subject. Will the Prime Minister ensure that it is fed into the inquiry and fully considered?

David Cameron: I will, of course, do that. This inquiry gives us an opportunity to look at some reports that a lot of work has gone into, but, sadly, that have gathered dust, rather than having been taken as seriously as perhaps they should have been.

Dennis Skinner: Everybody is aware that the reason why Murdoch had such tremendous power was that he had more than 40% of the print media, with television stations thrown in. It was not because of his amazing personality that politicians of all parties were in his pocket; it was because he had such power through the newspapers. In answer to the recent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), the Prime Minister said he did not want to strip Murdoch or anybody else of their titles. Will he therefore include in the inquiry’s terms of reference that the judge can, if he so wishes, say that nobody should have more than one title or one television station? Will the Prime Minister agree to that, because without it this cancer on the body politic—Murdoch—will remain?

David Cameron: Of course, the inquiry can go where it wants to go; it can follow the evidence where it leads. I am sure the judge will want to produce an inquiry under the current law. That is what we have to do; we have to be a Government of the law. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot have a responsible company owning a television or radio licence and also a newspaper, but we do need rules about plurality. That is why the media have not only a competition policy that they have to obey, but also some rules about plurality so we can make sure there is a decent share of voice—a number of different voices in our media. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am afraid that not enough was done over the last 10 years to make that happen.

Andrew Selous: We do not want anybody to be arrested in secret, but neither is it right that individual police officers should immediately contact their favourite journalist to let them know when someone is being arrested. Will the Prime Minister look at having a transparent and standard way of it being made public when someone has been arrested, so that this cannot happen in future?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend correctly identifies this as a problem, but I am not sure that I agree with his solution, although I will certainly look at it. It seems to me that it would be much better to try to have the same sort of transparency between the police and the media that we want between politicians and the media, because, in the end, I think transparency about media contacts would help to prevent the culture of leaking and briefing that has grown up in some parts of the police.

Helen Goodman: The Prime Minister’s statement was a bit complex, but it sounds as if the decision on the takeover would be made before the end of the judicial inquiry and the police inquiries. Is that correct, but surely it is not right?

David Cameron: The problem we face is that we have a set of rules concerning competition policy, plurality and “fit and proper” tests that are all laid down in the law and have to be carried out by Ofcom, the competition authorities and, indeed, the Secretary of State. He has to obey the law—and these laws were, largely, put in place by the previous Government. The Competition Commission will look at this; it will take its time, but it cannot take for ever in making its recommendation. Then there will be a decision for the Secretary of State.
	We cannot do anything but obey the law, but what we are doing today—what the leaders of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats and I are all doing—is making a clear statement about our opinion by saying to this business, “You can’t go on pursuing a merger when you ought to be dealing with the mess you’ve got in your own business”, and I think that is the best thing to do.

Tony Baldry: Is blagging already a criminal offence, and if it is not, will it be made a criminal offence?

David Cameron: Unlike my hon. Friend, I am not a lawyer, but I believe it is a criminal offence, because someone who obtains information falsely is breaking the law. This is another aspect that I am sure the inquiry can look at, however.

David Winnick: Does the Prime Minister agree that some of the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday must have come as a shock and a surprise? For instance, how can it be justified for the police to dine with the very people whom they are investigating, and is that not all the more reason why this inquiry is so necessary?

David Cameron: I agree. I watched some of the evidence, and that was very striking. Let us be frank about transparency: MPs have had to go through this over expenses and meetings and other things, and it is time for the police to address it, too. Transparency is the best answer. There are bound to be relationships between senior police leaders and senior media executives, not least because the police have to explain what they are trying to do, but if those relationships are transparent, people can know what is going on.

Brian Binley: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and may I say that it is good to see him on the front foot? May I also remind him of a sentence in the statement? He stated that “Sir Paul Stephenson is looking to invite a senior public figure to advise him on the ethics that should underpin that relationship for his own force, the Metropolitan police.” May I suggest that there is a wider need throughout the nation for such ethics to be applied, and may I ask the Prime Minister to take action to ensure that other forces are involved in this process?

David Cameron: Of course, relationships that have become unhealthy between some police officers and some media organisations are not just a problem in the Met, but as the Met is our premium and biggest force, I think that if it starts the process of not only transparency, but also the culture change that is necessary, that would set a good example to others.

Geraint Davies: In light of the information available to the Prime Minister on phone hacking, what techniques does he anticipate will be used to pressurise Ofcom over its decision as to whether Rupert and James Murdoch are fit and proper persons to run News International and BSkyB, and what action will he take to prevent any such intimidation?

David Cameron: The “fit and proper” test is a matter for Ofcom; it has to carry that out. It is right in this country that we do not ask individual politicians to make those individual decisions about who is fit and
	proper. We have also asked the Competition Commission to look at this issue. There is a separate issue, too: we need to allow Ofcom to make a “fit and proper” test at the point of full acquisition. That is a particular detail that we need to look at for the future.

Graham Stuart: For the first time ever, I think, I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). What is most disturbing and murkiest about this whole situation is the relationship between politicians and the media. From the moment when Tony Blair flew to Australia back in the 1990s, that relationship has meant that successive leaders of major parties have felt it necessary to cosy-up to media moguls. May we have a situation in future in which party leaders do not go to the birthday parties of these people, and instead keep them at arm’s length, so that the whole country can be assured that it is the public interest, not any media interest, that has power in the land?

David Cameron: The relationship did get unhealthy. It was too close and, as I have put it, too much time was spent courting the media and not enough time confronting the problems, but let us be honest, we are not suddenly all going to become monks and live in a monastery. We have to have relationships so that politicians can try to persuade media organisations that they are trying to do the right thing. We have a duty to explain our policies and what we are doing for the country. Democracy is government by explanation, so we have to explain ourselves to the media, but I hope that this whole process will end up delivering a healthier relationship where we can do that explaining, but also confront the problems at the same time.

David Lammy: Given what the Prime Minister has said about the police’s performance yesterday, was it wise of the Home Secretary to describe John Yates as doing a good job, and of Boris Johnson, when chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, to describe this as a song and dance and a load of codswallop?

David Cameron: Let me deal specifically with the issue of John Yates, because this is important. He does an extremely important job for the country in terms of counter-terrorism policing. I have watched him and the job that he does at close hand. We have to have a situation where the police are operationally independent, and if we put our trust in Paul Stephenson to run his team, we must allow him to do that. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this: it would be quite dangerous, would it not, if politicians were able to point at individual police officers, particularly those who were leading investigations into other politicians? So there are some dangers here. I think that John Yates is doing a good job on counter-terrorism. Clearly, as he said himself, he has some questions to answer about what went wrong with the initial investigation, and I hope that he will welcome this inquiry, which will get to the bottom of what went wrong.

Tessa Munt: In the light of and under the pressure of this inquiry it seems possible that serving police officers will go off on sick leave because of stress. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that in no circumstances
	will the taxpayer be asked to fund any pension of any police officer, either serving or now retired, who is found to be corrupt, as that would be the final insult?

David Cameron: I will have to look at the point that the hon. Lady makes. It sounds perfectly sensible but we have to obey the rules of the pension schemes and all the rest of it. However, people should not be rewarded in the way that she says.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Prime Minister talks about independent regulation. May I ask that the inquiry considers possible remedies in respect of applying pecuniary damages where wrongdoing is found and, more importantly, ensuring that an equal amount of time and space is given to printing a retraction as is spent on vilifying people?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I have worked in a regulated industry, in television, where you could be fined if you got something wrong—the company I worked for was fined a lot of money once—and there is no doubt that that has a huge effect on the business. But it is not for us to say what the rules should be; it is for this inquiry to do that and it should be properly advised by experts who understand how the media works.

Peter Bone: May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and you, Mr Speaker, on granting the Standing Order No. 24 debate in order to put Parliament at the heart of this matter? There is a danger in all this. In the scandal involving MPs, most MPs were of the highest integrity and were working hard in public service. Likewise, most journalists, including those at News International, are hard working and are of the highest integrity. Will the Prime Minister just mention that fact?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The British press has a lot to be proud of in terms of its record of investigative journalism, of uncovering the truth, of providing information and entertainment, and of holding the powerful to account. The point I would make to the sceptics in the press who will worry about this inquiry is: we cannot go on as we are, and we need to do something to stop this firestorm, to protect what is good in the media and to ensure its freedom for the future, and also to deal with the abuse that we clearly see in front of us.

Adrian Bailey: Earlier, in his responses during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister alluded to alleged lying to Select Committees. Given that misleading a Select Committee or refusing to turn up as a witness for a Select Committee is contempt of Parliament but that the last time criminal sanctions were invoked against anybody for that was in 1666, will he undertake to introduce emergency legislation to make contempt of Parliament a criminal offence at the earliest opportunity?

David Cameron: I will have to look closely at the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Perhaps it is something on which the Leader of the House, who does not quite go back to 1666 but goes some way further towards it than I do, will be able to give him some satisfaction.

Conor Burns: With the number of individuals and organisations with questions to answer growing by the day, will the Prime Minister assure me that, should there be further dramatic developments in the coming weeks he would not hesitate to add his voice to the call for a recall of this place from our summer recess so that they could be debated on the Floor of the House?

David Cameron: There is never normally any shortage of people calling for Parliament to be recalled—indeed, I remember that a recent recess had not even started when someone called for Parliament to be recalled. I may not be the first out of the traps, if I may put it that way.

Denis MacShane: I welcome the Prime Minister’s repeated emphasis on transparency. In that respect, does he think it would be useful if freedom of information legislation was extended to public and private bodies that operate fully in the public sphere, notably all the media ones?

David Cameron: I am sure that that is something the inquiry can look at. I do not share Tony Blair’s regret on freedom of information; I think that it has actually been a good thing. What we are seeking here is more transparency, so that people can see who is meeting and who is doing, rather than having to have a process of discovery. What this Government are bringing, across quite a range of areas, is that original transparency to reduce the need for often quite expensive discovery.

Phillip Lee: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to change the ministerial code in respect of meetings with members of the media. May I press him on the definition of “media”? In a world where people increasingly search for their news via Google and so on, and they share their news on Facebook and the like, I suggest that those organisations and meetings with them should also be in the public domain.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a very good point, because “media” now encompasses such a wide range of things. That is one of the reasons why I think it is necessary to consult briefly on this change to the ministerial code before we introduce it, because I want to make sure that we do it in a way that is clear and works well.

Jack Dromey: An outraged public demand action and expect leadership in the public interest. At every stage, the Prime Minister has been slow to act. Does he agree that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit and proper person? Given that we now know that Lord Ashdown warned the Prime Minister not to appoint Andy Coulson, does he have any regrets about appointing somebody who was clearly not a fit and proper person?

David Cameron: The point I would make is that in government you are not just making speeches; you have got to make decisions and you have got to get it right. You have got to make sure the terms of reference are right, you have got to make sure the inquiry is right, you have got to find the judge, you need to appoint the panel, you need to work out how you are going to be
	transparent and how to amend the ministerial code. It is not just about saying things; it is about doing things. Of course it takes time to get these things right when you have this enormous firestorm going on, but I think that we have taken some major steps forward that will make a big difference. On the “fit and proper” test, that is a matter for Ofcom. We must not get into a situation where the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition is pointing a finger and making a particular point about a particular person—that is Ofcom’s role. As for the other question, I think that I answered it in full.

Don Foster: On that very point, does the Prime Minister agree that if there are any legal restrictions preventing the regulators from judging now on the fitness of News Corporation as an organisation—not the individuals—to own existing shares in BSkyB, those regulations should be swept away immediately?

David Cameron: As I said earlier, we are looking at that specific issue. We have asked Ofcom and the Competition Commission to look at it, and we are going to hear what they have to say.

Paul Flynn: In the cash for honours inquiry, the Met judged all suspects to be innocent until they were proved to be Labour. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best-trusted news in the country and the best investigative journalism comes from those broadcasters who already have a statutory duty to balance their news? Instead of having a half solution, would not the ultimate solution be to spread the obligation to provide balanced political reporting to all media?

David Cameron: That is a matter for the inquiry. I think there are difficulties here. The reason for the statutory regulation of television is that you are dealing with a previously limited spectrum that was a privilege to own and statutory regulation came with it. The reason for not having the statutory regulation of newspapers is that in a free society you should be free to set up a newspaper, to distribute opinions and information—[Interruption.] Even if it is the Morning Star, as someone said. It is important that we hold on to that. I do want the newspapers to understand that neither the Government nor the Opposition want to leap into statutory regulation. That is not the intention; we want to improve on what we have now.

Nadhim Zahawi: I commend the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for working with the Opposition in dealing with this very serious issue. The Prime Minister will be sharing sensitive information with the Leader of the Opposition, so can I ask him to seek assurances that Tom Baldwin, an ex-News International employee, will not be privy to such sensitive information?

David Cameron: We all have to answer for the people who work for us and the accusations that are made against them. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will want to do that.

Margaret Curran: May I emphasise to the Prime Minister that the feelings of revulsion being expressed against these practices are particularly
	strong in Scotland? Will he therefore meet the First Minister soon so that we can understand the full extent of phone hacking in Scotland and what needs to be done to tackle it?

David Cameron: I have regular conversations with the First Minister. In this case, the best thing is to ensure that the devolved Administrations are happy with the terms of reference and to work out how the inquiry will relate to those Administrations. Any evidence can be put straight into the inquiry in the way I have suggested.

Jo Swinson: Even if private medical details are obtained without breaking the law, it does not mean that it is right to publish them, especially when they relate to a child and no possible public interest case can be made. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the inquiry will consider and recommend what meaningful sanctions can be imposed in cases where media outlets might not have acted against the law but have certainly acted against common standards of decency and ethics?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I am sure the inquiry will look at that, but let me repeat something I said earlier: whatever regulatory system we have, we must still have people at the top of newspapers and media organisations who take responsibility and recognise that it is not right to reveal that someone is pregnant, for instance, when there is no certainty that they will keep that baby. These are important things that are about common sense and decency, and whatever regulatory system we come up with, we must ensure that we keep hold of that thought, too.

Stephen Timms: Why did his chief of staff not pass on to him what he found out from The  Guardian?

David Cameron: I think I have answered this question in some detail. The fact is that the information was not passed on but the lion’s share of it was included in a published article in The Guardian about which I gave a very extensive answer about an hour ago.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to accommodate a few more colleagues, but to do so I require brevity. I call Mr William Cash.

William Cash: Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.
	The Prime Minister has referred repeatedly to media organisations and media executives and he has noted the fact that the word “media” covers a wide range. Does he agree that to be fully comprehensive the terms of reference should also be extended to sound and visual media? It is not impossible, given the uncertainty and unexpected turns of events, that that side of things might be involved, too.

David Cameron: As I said, whatever terms of reference are agreed with a judge they are free to pursue the evidence. If it takes them to different places, they can follow it and I am sure they will consider carefully what my hon. Friend says.

Angela Smith: In his statement, the Prime Minister said that Judge Leveson and his panel will inquire into “the contacts made, and discussions had, between national newspapers and politicians”. May I take it, therefore, that he will submit to the inquiry details of all meetings held between him and senior figures at News International, including the names of the individuals who attended such meetings, even if one of them was his ex-chief of staff, Andy Coulson?

David Cameron: I will be happy to go along to the inquiry and answer any questions it wants to put to me about any contacts I have had with any media organisation at any time, as long as I still have the memory of when it happened. I am very happy to do that.

Mark Reckless: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Affairs Committee hearing yesterday was not a one-off but the conclusion of a nine-month inquiry, pursued throughout on a cross-party basis? That raised serious concerns about the role not just of the police but of the Crown Prosecution Service in curtailing the original investigation.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, one thing that the second part of the inquiry will consider, as well as the first police investigation, what went wrong and why it was insufficient, is the review of that investigation and why it did not result in further action. Those are difficult questions and it is right that an inquiry should consider them.

Mark Durkan: Has the Prime Minister satisfied himself that the proposed double-barrelled inquiry will be proofed against the possible chicane of legal challenges to its conduct and scope that it could face from various interests? Has he also anticipated the various calls, a few of them valid, for legal representation at the inquiry? Will Ministers or former Ministers, when they are giving or preparing evidence, do so with the support and assistance of Law Officers?

David Cameron: That is a very good question. I have found, doing this job, that almost nothing is chicaned, as he put it, from legal inquiry. We think we are doing this in the right way under the Inquiries Act 2005 and all the things that flow from that, but I can perhaps consider the detail of his question about preparation for Ministers.

Stephen Barclay: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the police investigation will include payments made to connected parties, such as relatives of police officers, including payments not made in cash, such as electronic transfers to shell companies, vouchers or travellers cheques? In due course, will it also consider others who provide stories, such as paramedics, accident and emergency doctors and prison governors, and who might also be subject to corruption?

David Cameron: The inquiry must follow the evidence wherever it leads and if it finds malpractice in any of the services my hon. Friend mentioned, it must clearly investigate.

Pamela Nash: In recent days, it has become clear that a number of the alleged crimes that will be covered by the inquiry took place in Scotland. The Prime Minister said earlier that he has
	regular discussions with the First Minister. Has the Prime Minister received reassurances from the Scottish Government that the inquiry will have the full co-operation of the Scottish Government and all the relevant authorities?

David Cameron: One reason we need to consult about the terms of reference is to ensure that we consult with devolved Administrations, including the First Minister, to see what they have to say.

Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the Prime Minister on grasping the nettle. Let me repeat the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) about the history of Select Committees not being able to compel people to attend. That must be considered as there is a process, but it is very long-winded. Can the question of whether there is any way of ensuring that people can be brought to a Select Committee when they are asked to give evidence be considered?

David Cameron: That is a repeated call to the one made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). I think it is an issue for the Leader of the House to address; perhaps he can say something about it tomorrow at business questions. We want people to attend Select Committees. Obviously, we want to ensure that we do not ask people to do things that are desperately inconvenient, but if people give us the endless run-around, there should perhaps be some way through that.

Kevin Brennan: Just to be absolutely clear, the Prime Minister said earlier that proprietors could be called to the inquiry. Will he confirm that if those proprietors are foreign citizens, they could be compelled to attend and give evidence, unlike with Select Committees?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises a good issue. I do not see why the answer to that should be no. If you own media in this country, then you should be able to be called under oath.

Dan Byles: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be a mistake if, at the end of this process, we saw the death of good investigative journalism? He has alluded to the investigation into MPs expenses, for example, and it would be wrong if we ended up with such a scandal not coming to light.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not want those people in the press who work hard, who are good investigative reporters, who do not break the law, who find good stories and who hold the powerful to account to watch today’s proceedings and think that we are going to strangle the free press in this country. That is not what we should be doing. It is very important that we all say that and that the inquiry bears that at the heart of what it is doing and it is in the terms of reference.

Bill Esterson: The Prime Minister said that destroying evidence would be a criminal offence, but my understanding is that that is the case only once the terms of reference for the inquiry have been set. Why did he not set up the inquiry last week, when Labour Members asked him to, and will he ensure that the terms of reference are set as soon as possible so that no further evidence is destroyed?

David Cameron: The premise underlying the hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. My understanding is that when there is a police investigation, as there is with hacking, if evidence is destroyed that breaks the law. That investigation is happening right now. As regards setting up the inquiry, the terms of reference are now in the Library for the hon. Gentleman to see. If he has suggestions and ideas he can make them known, but I sent the terms of reference to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this morning for comments from the Labour party and we have incorporated those comments in full.

Matthew Hancock: May I push the Prime Minister a little more on the culture of journalism? As with the bankers crisis and the MPs’ expenses crisis, changing the culture and self-responsibility of the industry is important. What will he do to take a lead on that?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should celebrate good journalism and social responsibility in journalism and media organisations. Let me put it on the record that many media organisations do some brilliant things in our country to build up what I call the big society. We must not damn all media because of what is happening and what has happened in some organisations. As well as a good regulatory system, we need a culture that is, yes, about getting to the truth but, no, not about breaking the law.

Nick Smith: Given the point made earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the Metropolitan police’s small team will take many months to go through all the names and phone numbers that they have to go through, may I press the Prime Minister to make sure that they have enough police officers to do the job in good time?

David Cameron: As I said in my statement, this is one of the biggest police investigations currently ongoing in Britain. In defence of the Metropolitan police, next year is the Olympics and we have an enormous security challenge to get right in this country. The Metropolitan police has to meet a huge number of objectives—it is for the police authority to help to set those—so I do think it is putting adequate resources into this. As I have said, it is one of the biggest operations in Britain today.

Eric Ollerenshaw: May I for one congratulate the Prime Minister and other party leaders on the speed and scope of all this? I particularly want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) about why the issue of police ethics is being dealt with only in relation to the Metropolitan police. It seems to some of us that there is a kind of cultural tradition across all police forces of having a tight relationship with favoured journalists. Perhaps in the short term my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could talk to chief constables about starting their own procedures.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. First, the inquiry will make recommendations across all police forces from the lessons it learns about this malpractice. The point that Paul Stephenson and I were discussing last night was that there is an opportunity for the Met specifically to take a leadership role in what it does, which I am sure others will follow.

Grahame Morris: The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that we should follow the evidence trail wherever it leads. If that includes the proprietors of News International or other media groups, should we not be hardening the terms of evidence? Is it the Prime Minister’s view that Rupert Murdoch should be required to give evidence to the judge-led inquiry?

David Cameron: The point about the judge-led inquiry is that it must choose who it wants to speak to and it must then call them under oath and make sure that they answer questions accurately. Clearly, it is going to want to talk to editors, proprietors and those who are responsible right across the media. That is going to be the work it does.

Bob Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will never be able to stop criminals who are intent on phone-tapping but that whatever we do and whatever steps we take we have to try to minimise the possibility of that?

David Cameron: That is right; we will never stop all law-breaking through a regulatory system, just as we will never stop all law-breaking through a policing system. Clearly, with the media we want to have a free, independent media that do not feel the heavy hand of statutory regulation, so we need a change of law but we also need a change of culture.

Dave Watts: Does the Prime Minister agree that the general public will find it amazing that anyone is suggesting that the press should have self-regulation? Is it not a No. 1 priority that we should have regulation that is independent?

David Cameron: I like the word “independent” rather than “self”, which sounds as though newspapers will be regulating themselves rather than being regulated by someone more independent, although not reliant on the Government—that would be worrying—who can take a strong view.

Harriett Baldwin: Will the inquiry be able to take evidence from Mr Lance Price who used to work at Downing street and who said in 2006 that when he worked there he sometimes felt as though Rupert Murdoch was the 24th member of the Cabinet?

David Cameron: I am sure that Lance Price will be available. I have to say that the book he wrote about the last Government was one of the most depressing things I have ever read.

Ian Murray: If the will of the House this evening is carried and News International simply withdraws its bid for BSkyB, what steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the will of the House is carried and what steps will he take to persuade Rupert Murdoch to do the decent thing?

David Cameron: As I have tried to explain, the Government have a responsibility to act within the law. We have to deal with each merger, acquisition and process as the law dictates and that is what my right
	hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has to do. Tonight, the House of Commons is going to express a very strong opinion and I hope that opinion will be heeded.

David Rutley: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Can he tell the House whether other national Governments have been in contact to express their concerns about the activities of News International and whether US authorities are planning to investigate the company for possible breaches under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

David Cameron: I have not had any contact with any US politicians about this issue.

Madeleine Moon: In the fire storm that has hit the country, thousands of families have been thrown back to the trauma of a loved one’s death. Will the Prime Minister ensure that he has conversations with the Press Complaints Commission so that it can start talking to the editors of national newspapers about not regurgitating stories that will increase that trauma to families? Can we also ensure that when police officers approach families, if they need to tell them that their phone calls have been hacked, they provide them with help and guidance as well as information about desist notices so that those families’ trauma can be reduced rather than their grief being added to?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes a very good and sensitive point. It is not just for the PCC but for newspapers themselves to understand the trauma that is being caused and the need to be more sensitive.

George Eustice: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the key weaknesses of the PCC is that the public interest defence in the code has, frankly, been used and abused over the years? That is why it is so important to have independent regulation going forward and why those who continue to cling to the idea of self-regulation are wrong.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend did an excellent job as my press secretary for many years before taking the sensible view that he belonged on these Benches. There is a problem, which the inquiry will have to look at: we want the press to take action in the national interests, but we have to have a system in which they are not breaking the law. That has to be resolved.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Prime Minister explain further the practical difference between self-regulation and independent regulation?

David Cameron: I do not want to get into theological debate about this, but I think the problem with the phrase “self-regulation” is that it implies too much of a continuation of a scheme under which the press have effectively been regulating themselves. This will be a matter for the judge and his panel, but what we are looking for is something more independent—not statutory regulation with the heavy hand of the state, but independent regulation that means we are able to make sure that proper standards are followed. I gave some examples of how that works elsewhere and I think it can be done.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and the leadership he has shown on this matter. Will he clarify a point about the inquiry, given that in recent months and years certain inquiries have held evidence sessions behind closed doors? What will be done to ensure that all the evidence is taken in public so that the public can see what has been done and what is being done to correct it?

David Cameron: This is an independent public inquiry led by a judge, with evidence being taken under oath and being held in public. That is the whole point. Obviously, if it suddenly decided it was inquiring into deep national security issues it might have to have a different session, but it is a public inquiry.

Jonathan Edwards: The Prime Minister says that he wants a cross-party approach to this issue, so when will he meet the leaders of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parties in the House? In 2006, the Information Commissioner reported up to 3,000 breaches of privacy. Will the inquiry that the Prime Minister is announcing today look into those cases?

David Cameron: I hope the inquiry will look at what happened with the Information Commissioner’s report, because that was one of the wake-up calls when, frankly, the politicians did not wake up. In terms of taking into account the views of the other parties in the House, I am going to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary and see what is the best way forward.

David Morris: May I ask the Prime Minister, given the group feeling in the House, whether we could put the full vetting authorities of the Government to the assistance of the Leader of the Opposition so that he can find out more about his director of communications?

David Cameron: We all have to answer questions about the people we employ and the activities they might have undertaken. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will be doing just that.

Sheila Gilmore: At the turn of the year, when Opposition Members were urging the Culture Secretary to refer the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission, we were given to understand that, even if it were referred, the terms of reference would be very limited. On Monday, the Culture Secretary indicated to the House that there would be fairly wide terms of reference. Are the terms of reference that have apparently already been sent this week going to be made available to the House?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary can answer this question in the debate later. The point is that the Competition Commission has been asked to look at plurality grounds and also to look at the “fit and proper” issue. We have to do these things under the law though: we cannot suddenly invent new grounds. We can only use the legal instruments and tests that are there.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation that sunlight is the best disinfectant? If we are really going to sort things out on a cross-party basis, surely it is not good enough for this to involve only Government Ministers and special advisers—surely it should involve shadow Ministers and their special advisers as well.

David Cameron: I think that is right. The point about the relationship between politicians and the press, and where that has gone wrong, is, as I said, that we have been courting support rather than confronting problems. That has been the case for Oppositions. I freely admit that as Leader of the Opposition, you spend quite a lot of time trying to persuade newspapers and others to support you, because you want to explain your policies, your vision and what you are doing for the country. That will not stop. We are not all going to go and live in a monastery and never talk to journalists ever again, wonderful though that might seem by moments. We must have a healthy relationship where we can have those meetings and discussions, but at the same time confront the difficulties that we have. That is what the commission will do.

Graham Jones: I am not a legal expert, but I am deeply concerned about the suggestion that there is a non-disclosure agreement between News International and Glenn Mulcaire, the man at the centre of hacking. If a non-disclosure agreement exists, it must have been put in place between News International and him in 2005 or 2006, at the time that Andy Coulson was at the News of the World. I have a deep concern about who negotiated that and the implications. Will the Prime Minister look into the matter personally, and will it be part of the inquiry?

David Cameron: That needs to be part of the police inquiry, never mind the inquiry that is about to start under Judge Leveson. There is a police inquiry now into what went wrong at the News of the World, how much hacking took place, who was hacked and who knew. All those questions need to be answered by the police, and it is a full-on police inquiry, not the rather thin inquiry that happened before.

Gavin Barwell: On the issue of transparency about meetings between politicians and media proprietors and executives, will my right hon. Friend go further than the Leader of the Opposition suggested and go back not just to the last election, but to the previous Government, so that my constituents can see what people on both sides of the House have been up to in the past?

David Cameron: We will look at the issue of transparency and how best to put it into the ministerial code, and consider what is right and fair. The inquiry will be able to look at contacts over a period to try to see what went wrong in the relationship.

Jim Shannon: Will the meetings of the inquiry be open to the general public? In other words, will we all know what is happening, and will the general public know as well?

David Cameron: Yes, this is a public inquiry held in public.

Tom Brake: Does the Prime Minister believe that once a healthier relationship is established between politicians and the media, it will be easier for Governments to adopt evidence-based policy in relation to, for instance, tackling drugs, community sentences, or immigration and asylum?

David Cameron: That is a lovely idea. As I say, the inquiry will not mean no contact between politicians and the media. There are difficult issues—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a couple of them—where we need to try to explain and take people with us when we are taking difficult decisions. We cannot do that ourselves through direct communications. We need a lively and questioning media to help us do that, but perhaps a healthy relationship will make what he wants more possible.

Naomi Long: I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister’s answers. Does he accept that there is a significant difference between explaining Government policy or the Opposition’s position to the media, and courting their support, and that it is that culture of courting the support of the media that needs to be tackled not by inquiry, but by the Members of the House?

David Cameron: I agree. There is nothing wrong with meeting editors or proprietors and trying to explain why your vision is the right one for the country. People expect you to do that. Where it can go wrong, and where it has gone wrong, is where politicians start doing things, perhaps influenced by those media companies, that they would not otherwise do. I well remember standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box opposing 42-day detention, which I do not think for a minute most of those on the—sorry—then Government Front Bench believed in. I think they were doing it because of the pressure that they felt from some parts of the press. It is profoundly wrong, and the sort of thing that we must stop in the future.

Sajid Javid: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Does he agree that the Press Complaints Commission as currently constituted is clearly not fit for purpose, and that it would have been most helpful if its reform had been initiated back in 2007, when the phone hacking inquiry at that time failed?

David Cameron: Many people on the Press Complaints Commission have tried to make it work. I would argue that it has made improvements in recent years from when it was originally established, but when
	we look at what has happened and the trail of reports, problems and the rest of it, the conclusion we must come to is that the PCC did not do enough to pick that up. Reform is therefore needed. That is one of the starting points for the inquiry.

Alun Cairns: Does the Prime Minister regret the Opposition’s inaction over such serious and grave issues over a number of years? If they are now to succeed and maintain public support, they need to be above party politics, and political opportunism should be shunned and ignored.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. We need an all-party approach, as far as possible. Sometimes all-party approaches can become a bit of a conspiracy, so we have to make sure that that is not the case. A basic level of agreement exists about the inquiry, the terms of reference, and the need to change the regulatory system. If we can push forward in that way, there will not be too much regulatory arbitrage, so to speak, which is a danger in such a situation. I propose to keep in close touch with the leader of the Labour party about this.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend agree with a senior commentator in the Twittersphere who says that people in glass houses should not throw stones?

David Cameron: I long ago learned my lesson about not saying anything about the Twittersphere for fear of getting the wrong vowel in the wrong place.

Duncan Hames: Media regulation, like the inquiry, goes well beyond simple law-breaking. How can we be sure that it can act in a timely fashion on known wrongdoing where that is sufficient, without waiting for the conclusion of numerous criminal investigations and the prosecutions that follow them?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The part of the inquiry which is, for instance, investigating allegations of police corruption or investigating the hacking at the News of the World, must wait for the police investigations to be carried out, for prosecutions to be carried out and, as I understand it, for any appeals to be lodged. That is one for the reasons for having one inquiry with two parts, rather than two inquiries, otherwise the one doing that part would take a very long time indeed before it got going.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues for their succinctness, which enabled all 78 Back Benchers who wanted to contribute to do so.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Liam Fox: I wish to announce the publication today of the Mull of Kintyre review, the report of the independent review of the evidence relating to the findings of the board of inquiry into the fatal accident of an RAF Chinook helicopter at the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. It is right that I should begin this statement by paying tribute to the 29 people who died in that accident, one of the worst in the history of the Royal Air Force. As is well known, the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community who were travelling to a meeting in Inverness, and their deaths were a huge blow to the security of this country. They were also a human tragedy for each of the 29 families who were devastated by the loss of their loved ones.
	I pledged while in opposition that I would set up a review, because I had worries that an injustice might have been done. The official conclusion that the accident was caused by the negligence to a gross degree of the two pilots on duty that day, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook, had been criticised almost since the day it was reached. Doubt had been cast on the findings in different ways by the fatal accident review held in 1995, by the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee of the House in 1998 and 2000, and by the Select Committee appointed in another place in 2002.
	A number of Members of the House have continued to voice their doubts over the findings of gross negligence, and I wish to acknowledge the unflagging interest in the case shown by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and others, and also by Sir John Major. I know that the Ministry of Defence considered those reports carefully, taking independent and specialist advice, but given the weight and breadth of the comments, I thought it only right to ask an independent figure to check whether justice had been done.
	I announced the establishment of the review—the first independent review of the evidence relating to the accident set up by the Government themselves—to the House on 16 September last year. It was my intention that its report, whatever its findings might be, should draw a line under this matter. It has been carried out by the distinguished former Scottish judge, Lord Philip, with the advice and support of a panel of three fellow Privy Counsellors, my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, Baroness Liddell and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I am extremely grateful to all four for their thorough and painstaking approach to the task and for the clarity with which they have presented their recommendations, which are unanimous. I held them all in high regard before, and hold them in higher regard now.
	Lord Philip and his colleagues have concluded that the finding that the pilots were negligent to a gross degree should be set aside and that the Ministry of
	Defence should consider offering an apology to the families of Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook. I can tell the House that I have accepted these recommendations. At a specially convened meeting of the Defence Council on Monday it was decided that
	“the Reviewing Officers’ conclusions that Flight Lieutenants Tapper and Cook were negligent to a gross degree are no longer sustainable and must therefore be set aside. We therefore order that those findings shall be set aside”.
	I have written to the widows of the two pilots, to the father of Jonathan Tapper and to the brother of Richard Cook to express the Ministry of Defence’s apology for the distress caused by the findings of negligence. I also wish to express that apology publicly in the House today.
	Lord Philip’s analysis is very clear. To put it as briefly as I can, he identifies the central point as being that, according to the regulations in force at the time, a finding of negligence should have been made against air crew who had been killed in an accident only if there was “absolutely no doubt whatsoever” about the matter. Although the two air chief marshals who acted as reviewing officers for the board of inquiry and made the findings had no doubts on the matter, Lord Philip is clear that that is not enough. The question that should have been asked is whether there was any scope for doubt in anyone’s mind. In this case, other competent persons did have doubts, which is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the findings should not stand.
	I would like briefly to make four further points. First, the report does not purport to tell us exactly why Chinook ZD576 crashed. It is central to Lord Philip’s report that the exact cause will never be established, and I am convinced that pursuing the matter further would serve only to increase the distress of the families and friends of those who died in the accident. But those who allege that there has been a long-running conspiracy to cover up technical shortcomings in the aircraft will find no support here. The Chinook has had an excellent safety record since the disaster on the Mull. It has been a mainstay of our operations in successive theatres of war and has the full confidence of those who fly it. However, the report reveals that on this occasion the pilot expressed concerns that he felt unprepared to fly the aircraft.
	Secondly, I want to emphasise that the air chief marshals who made the decision, Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten, who are now retired, were and are highly respected and experienced airmen who acted at all times with full conviction on what was the right and proper course and in good faith. They did not reach their decision lightly and they asked for legal advice. Regrettably, that legal advice, although subsequently endorsed by independent Queen’s counsel, has now proved to be incorrect. I attach no personal blame to these distinguished officers and their advisers.
	Thirdly, the procedures for investigating air and other military accidents were changed some years ago, with the result that it is no longer the practice for boards of inquiry, now called service inquiries, to ascribe blame to those involved, whether or not they survived the accident. This is because sometimes the business of ascribing blame can get in the way of finding out what actually happened and, more importantly, preventing any recurrence.
	Fourthly, the report makes one further recommendation: that the Ministry of Defence should reconsider its policy and procedures for the transport of personnel whose responsibilities are vital to national security. I accept that recommendation as well. It has implications for land and sea transport as well as air transport. I have directed my officials to ensure that the policy and procedures in place across all three services ensure that we do not unnecessarily risk so many individuals who are vital to national security in one vehicle. It is worth noting that Flight Lieutenant Tapper had asked for the passengers on the Chinook to be split between more than one helicopter.
	This has been an unhappy affair that has caused much reflection within the RAF and anguish for the families of those who died, particularly the families of those who were wrongly found officially to have been negligent to a gross degree. I hope that this report and the action I have taken in response to it will bring to an end this sad chapter by removing the stain on the reputations of the two pilots.

Jim Murphy: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, join him in his moving tribute to the 29 people who died in this terrible incident and add our continuing condolences to their families. I also join him in offering our support to this unanimous report and the work carried out by Lord Philip, Lord Forsyth, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and my noble Friend Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke.
	It is over such tragic and controversial events that the whole House should unite to ensure that the right outcome is found in the interests of service personnel, past and present, and their families. It is in our collective interest to establish as much as we can about what happened on 2 June 1994, to learn the right lessons for the Ministry of Defence and the RAF and to come to a settled view for the families of all of those who perished on the Mull of Kintyre. The Secretary of State has my full support in his work towards these objectives.
	Successive Secretaries of State, initially Conservative and then Labour, decided to follow the findings of gross negligence produced by the two senior air marshals, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten and Air Vice-Marshal Sir John Day. Their view, as the Secretary of State has suggested, overturned the original opinion of the RAF board of inquiry, which had found no evidence to suggest that either pilot was negligent. For gross negligence to be proven, the Queen’s regulations for the RAF state that
	“only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased air crew be found negligent”.
	It is a remarkably clear definition, and the contents of today’s report reveal that that test has not been met at any point since 1994.
	No one doubts that all those involved in the inquiry acted in good faith, but it is now clear that the two air marshals initially sought, and were given, inadequate legal assistance in their interpretation of the standard of proof. I do not enjoy saying this, but it now also appears that Secretaries of State of both Governments were kept in the dark on differences between the board and the reviewing officers and that Ministers were deprived
	of the ability to reach a properly informed view. Investigations by the Public Accounts Committee in November 2000 and by a House of Lords Select Committee in November 2001 found that the reviewing officers of the board of inquiry were not justified in attributing gross negligence to the Chinook pilots because the findings did not satisfy the burden of proof required. It is important that in 2001 the board of inquiry rules were changed to ensure that no deceased pilot could ever be found negligent in this way again.
	Let me turn to the wider lessons and ask the Secretary of State five specific questions arising from his welcome statement. First, he said that
	“the report reveals that…the pilot expressed concerns that he felt unprepared to fly the aircraft”.
	Will he tell the House how this matter was dealt with at the time by officers involved? Secondly, what issues surrounding compensation for the families of the deceased arise from the report? Thirdly, and I put this gently, the content of today’s announcement was trailed in the media at the weekend, days before Parliament had a chance to see it. Does the Secretary of State intend to carry out any inquiry on the possible leak of some of the contents of today’s report? Fourthly, and more substantially, did Lord Philip’s review find fault with the board of inquiry’s process, and should the make-up of boards of inquiry be changed to remove the perceived conflict of interest identified by the Public Accounts Committee in its previous report? Fifthly, the Secretary of State rightly said that he had written to the relatives of the two pilots, but have the contents of the report been shared with the families of the others who perished on the Mull of Kintyre?
	In conclusion, I have said before at the Dispatch Box, and will continue to do so, that when the Government do the right thing they will rightly enjoy our support. Today, in the interests of all the families involved, the right thing is being done and lessons have to be learnt. We fully support what the Secretary of State has said today.

Liam Fox: I am extremely grateful for what the shadow Secretary of State has said and the tone in which he presented it to the House.
	When we look at the experience under previous Secretaries of State, we see that the inquiries that took place were perhaps not quite focusing on the correct point. In Lord Philip’s inquiry, he very quickly, with his team, went to the point of the matter on a legal basis—that is, as the shadow Secretary of State has said, they grasped that attributing gross negligence could be done only if there was no doubt. This was not about establishing something beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the test that most of us would expect normally to be applied—it was an absolutely objective test. Perhaps in previous inquiries we were looking into the details and missing the main point.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of very reasonable questions. In answer to his specific question about how the matter was handled at the time, I refer him to paragraph 7.2.2 of the report, which says:
	“We were told that Flt Lt Tapper telephoned his Deputy Flight Commander on the evening before the delivery of ZD576 to Northern Ireland expressing concern that some time had passed since his conversion training. He felt unprepared to fly the aircraft. He had attempted to persuade the tasking authority to spread the load between more than one aircraft, but his request had been refused.”
	On compensation, yes, there will be questions of compensation arising. I spoke to some of the families involved today, but I did not feel that today was the appropriate time to be talking about money when there are very serious points of principle and we are opening up a very difficult emotional period for the families. However, we will undoubtedly take this forward in the usual way with those families.
	As regards details appearing in the media, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that very many of those were completely wrong. I suspect that people were making educated guesses that turned out to be not so educated.
	Finally, neither Lord Philip nor his team criticised the initial board of inquiry. The problem came with the reviewing officers who attributed gross negligence when the board of inquiry had not come to a specific conclusion about who or what was to blame for the crash.

Malcolm Rifkind: As Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the Chinook accident, and having given evidence to the Philip inquiry, may I say that I am delighted and relieved that this decision has been announced by the Secretary of State? It is a decision that is right, that is necessary, and that is long overdue. As the Royal Air Force decided some years ago that it was not going to continue to try to assess questions of negligence in its own internal inquiries because that was much more appropriately a matter for the courts of law, is it not very sad that the RAF and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence, despite changing their own procedures and despite the mounting evidence from many authoritative inquiries, have chosen to resist for 16 long years the annulment of this injustice, which arose out of these very procedures?

Liam Fox: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his thanks for the decision that has been made. It is right, I think, that the RAF took the decision that questions of negligence and blame should be set aside in order to try to get to the truth of the cause of any particular accidents. It is very regrettable that it has taken such a long time to get to the situation today. However, it is none the less a tribute to many Members in this House who have felt that an injustice was being done. It shows the House of Commons at its best when pressure from the House of Commons can cause an injustice to be overturned.

Frank Field: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on showing the guts to get his Department’s public stance to where justice demanded it should have been for many a year? While he has naturally concentrated on the families of the two pilots, 27 other families are also involved. Will he think of ways in which the views of this House might be conveyed to them as well?

Liam Fox: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We have tried to share some of this process with those families. I understand that for many of them this will have been a difficult reopening of a sad and painful process. I hope, however, that although it has been reopened, we have, with the conclusions that we have come to today, given them proper closure by reaching a just and equitable verdict.

James Arbuthnot: May I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend and Lord Philip and his team for putting right an injustice that has lasted for far too long? May I add that the air marshals who did the reviewing and who overturned the original finding, while they were quite wrong in their decision, are nevertheless wholly honourable men who were doing what they believed was right on the basis of the legal advice that they were given? Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a massive contribution to this famous victory was made by people such as Brian Dixon and Tony Collins of Computer Weekly and David Harrison of Channel 4, the noble Lord O’Neill, and people from both sides of this House and of another place in contributing to the notion that justice should finally be done and closure should arrive?

Liam Fox: I entirely agree that the air marshals concerned did what they believed to be right. They followed their consciences. They are fine, decent and honourable men. They were, in my view, not correctly informed about the law and the rules that applied at the time. Given that there were, I imagine, a number of legal personnel who took a contrary view, it is a shame that it has taken so long for that view to be brought to light, and I am grateful to Lord Philip for achieving that. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that there are many beyond this House who have sought resolution in this case for a very long time. They played an important part in keeping the issue alive for long enough for justice to be done. It does not matter how long it takes; it matters that it is done in the end.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a hugely important and sensitive matter both for the families concerned and for the country as a whole, but I must remind the House that there is heavy pressure on time. I appeal to colleagues to ask short questions, and I know that the Secretary of State will provide characteristically short replies.

Angus Robertson: I give an unqualified welcome to the inquiry conclusions and hope that this finally provides natural justice to the Cook and Tapper families. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry had available to it all relevant documents, including the Chinook airworthiness review team report? May I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who said in opposition that he would seek to right this wrong? He has done just that, and he deserves praise and recognition for doing so.

Liam Fox: I am grateful for that. On a day when so many elements of public life are being torn down, it is perhaps useful that we have an example of where the House can come together and where, when we say one thing in opposition, it actually happens in government.
	I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that all the documents that Lord Philip and his team asked to see were made available. In fact, when the report was presented to me I checked again that they had been given access to any material that they had sought and were able to speak to any individuals they had wanted to see. I understand that the report that he mentions refers to the Mark 1, not the Mark 2, and so it would have been less relevant in this case, but none the less it was released and made available to the inquiry.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his unqualified apology to the House. Having been a member of the team, I also thank Lord Philip for the way in which he conducted the inquiry, for the advice that he gave, and for the fact that we had a collective but unanimous decision. The standard of proof was designed for a layman and is clear beyond any doubt whatsoever, and yet the legal advice given to the air marshals was that it meant whatever the RAF wished it to mean, which is not a standard of legal advice that anyone in this House would recognise. Will the Secretary of State conclude that we will never know what happened on the Chinook, but the families should now have comfort that the matter can be put to rest?

Liam Fox: I reiterate my great thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done. The conclusions that he has stated are correct. All I would say is that in producing this report we seem to have created a crack team, and I am sure that Governments with inquiries in future will take note of that.

Jimmy Hood: May I equally thank the Secretary of State and compliment him on correcting this wrong?
	I have to say that my recollection, having sat on the Select Committee along with my friend the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), is not as kind towards the air marshals as what has been said today. The truth is that they did not have any evidence on which to come up with the decision that they did, and they laid their decision on legal advice. The families of those two pilots were right to expect that two air marshals would know better and not rely on a decision by lawyers. The two pilots have been scapegoated for all these years, and respective Defence Ministers and the officials in the Ministry of Defence have run away from this for all these years. The House is indebted to the Secretary of State for having corrected this wrong, but we cannot correct the wrong without pointing out that the two air marshals were a serious part of the problem.

Liam Fox: In fairness, the board of inquiry said that the most likely cause of the crash was pilot error, but it did not attribute blame. The air marshals used their experience and intuition to make a judgment based on the board of inquiry’s findings. Lord Philip and his team found that they were not able to do that based on the level of evidence required to attribute negligence in the way that they did.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. As I look for a single-sentence question, I feel sure that the test will be met by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

David Davis: I am not sure that I can meet that expectation, Mr Speaker, but I will do my best. Part of the problem arises from the clash between the demands for justice and for a solution that prevents an accident from happening again. The Secretary of State appears to have solved the justice problem for the future with a change to the rules on the attribution of blame. One of the problems was that
	there was no black box in this aircraft. Will he ensure that all RAF aircraft will in future have black boxes so that we will know the cause of any crash?

Liam Fox: Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support and long-standing campaigning on this issue. I have checked that we are now fitting black boxes routinely on all Chinooks. I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend.

Kate Hoey: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his personal dedication to and interest in this matter, and to his party and his coalition partners for putting the issue in their manifestos. Does this not send out a message to anyone who is fighting injustice that if they persevere and continue to push their case, they will eventually, if they are right, see justice?

Liam Fox: I of course agree with the hon. Lady. There are a lot of downsides to being a Member of Parliament, but one upside is the ability to see justice done and a wrong righted.

Menzies Campbell: If Parliament exists for the redress of grievance, today is a most eloquent illustration of that principle. My right hon. Friend deserves great credit for taking the decision that he has announced, and for the nature of the apology he has offered to the families, with whom I have been in contact over many years in relation to this campaign. I have always been impressed by their steadfast determination and dignity. Does my right hon. Friend understand that satisfaction at the outcome today is tempered by dismay that the original decision turned on legal advice that was palpably and self-evidently wrong?

Liam Fox: What I find somewhat difficult, having looked back at the various inquiries, is that nobody seemed to focus on the quality of the legal advice given at the time to the reviewing officers. There was a lot of focus on what happened on the ground and on the condition of the aircraft. Nobody seemed to focus on this essential point, which seems to be where the injustice emanated from.

Lady Hermon: The Chinook helicopter crash in the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 was, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, one of the worst in the history of the Royal Air Force. Of course, it was also the worst accident in the history of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with 10 of its noble officers being killed. May I take this opportunity to say to the Secretary of State, his colleagues and the House that the widows of those RUC officers will be absolutely delighted and hugely relieved that the terrible stigma of gross negligence is today lifted from those two brave and courageous young pilots?

Liam Fox: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I entirely echo her sentiments about the RUC.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a modern day version of the famous Archer-Shee case, which involved the Royal Navy and the theft of a postal order, and which became the basis of a famous play in which the service would not admit that it was wrong? Will he add to his list of people who should be thanked the right
	hon. Lord Chalfont, who more than a decade ago instituted a debate that focused on the very point that the Secretary of State has emphasised today? Finally, does he share my regret that some close family members of the pilots are no longer alive to get the vindication that they deserved more than a decade ago?

Liam Fox: This may well be a modern version of “The Winslow Boy”. It is not the size of the injustice that matters, but the fact that it is an injustice. I commend Lord Chalfont for what he did on this matter, just as I thank many colleagues in the other place who have done so much to keep this case alive.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I would like to add my thanks to the Secretary of State for overturning in such a contrite and decent way what was a personal slight on the lives of two pilots and a slight on the entire system. He mentioned in his statement that the Ministry of Defence should reconsider its transport arrangements for senior intelligence personnel. We lost 10 gallant officers that evening on the Mull of Kintyre who could have changed the face of the troubles, and indeed shortened the troubles by up to 10 years. That human intelligence source was lost. That must not happen again because of travel arrangements. The Secretary of State is reconsidering the policy. Can he assure us that it will be changed forthwith?

Liam Fox: I have made it very clear that I accept the recommendation and that change will follow. We will review all current procedures. There is no doubt that that procedure was dangerous and wrong, to the detriment of this country’s security. We saw a similar phenomenon recently with the Polish Government. It does not make sense for any country to allow that amount of its national investment to be in any one vehicle, be it on the ground or in the air.

Andrew Murrison: The military covenant was betrayed in this case, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend for bringing some redress. What will he do to ensure that the quality of legal advice, which is still relevant in Iraq and Afghanistan where there have been issues over such advice, is improved so that we do not see a repeat of this sort of thing?

Liam Fox: It is impossible to guarantee that the advice from any one human being will be perfect. We therefore need to look constantly at the quality of advice and at the sources of that advice, and to ensure that it is spread widely enough to minimise the inevitable risk of human error.

Sandra Osborne: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I hope that it will bring comfort to all the families concerned. Surely it should have been common sense after the accident that there should have been no repetition of vital personnel being transported in such a way. Is the Secretary of State aware of instances where that reoccurred after the accident and where personnel vital to our national security were carried as one group?

Liam Fox: I am not aware of a specific instance. I think that this tragedy brought home the risk of doing that. Whether or not it has happened in the past, it will not happen in the future.

Bob Stewart: Three of the colonels on board the Chinook that day were friends of mine. One of them, Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Gregory-Smith, a commander of intelligence in Northern Ireland, was the godfather of my first son. Does the Secretary of State agree that the families have shown huge dignity and great courage in the years since 1994?

Liam Fox: I think that the families have shown calmness, dignity, great strength and great courage. I hope they feel today that all of that has been vindicated.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I sympathise with and convey my condolences to the 29 families who lost loved ones on 2 June 1994. That was some three months before the first IRA ceasefire. Will the Secretary of State undertake to write to all the families to convey the information in today’s report, which has been accepted by himself and the Government? Will he also indicate why the 1992 inquiry into the effectiveness of Chinooks was not taken into consideration?

Liam Fox: As I said, all documents were made available to the inquiry by Lord Philip and his team. They were able to take into account anything that they wanted. The documents were all made available to them, and they subsequently had a look at the document to which the hon. Lady refers. I will certainly ensure that all the families of the deceased get not only a full copy of the report but a copy of what has been said in the House today, which I am sure they will find extremely reassuring.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the Ministry of Defence’s apology today, which is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the families and the many campaigners, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who have campaigned for it. However, it is well over a decade since the erroneous advice was given to the air marshals. What can the Government now do to ensure that it never takes so long again to overturn something that has turned out to be palpably incorrect?

Liam Fox: I think we need to begin such a process by dealing with any such issue with a clean sheet of paper and a clear mind. The advantage of what Lord Philip and his team have done is that they were hugely objective. They had no preconceived view, nor did they have any knowledge in detail of the events that they were looking into. That in itself was a huge advantage in allowing them to see the details that needed to be seen that had perhaps been overlooked before.

Madeleine Moon: Today’s statement represents the successful persistence of many right hon. and hon. Members. It also represents the success of common sense over legal advice—but to be longer lasting, it must represent a new chapter in how we conduct such inquiries in future. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State confirming that new standards and new ways of conducting such inquiries will be in place for the future?

Liam Fox: The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point, and it is one that I raised with Lord Philip and his team. Given that I think there is wide acceptance in the House that they came to a conclusion that had been missed too often by previous inquiries, the question is: why? I have
	asked Lord Philip whether he would mind setting out why he thought this particular inquiry had worked, and, from his perspective and that of his team, why they thought they were able to get at the kernel of truth that was missed so many times in the past. Looking at their methods, and how they went about drawing up their report, would be hugely instructive and helpful as a template for similar inquiries in the future.

Stephen Phillips: May I add my tributes to those given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other hon. Members? I want to return, if I may, to the legal advice that forms the basis of the report. It appears that the conclusions of the original legal advice were obviously and palpably wrong. I quite understand that my right hon. Friend cannot give assurances about the quality of future advice, but there appears to have been a culture within the Department of seeking to defend the indefensible on the basis of something that was absolutely and obviously wrong, and he can give assurances about that culture. Will he assure the House that he will investigate that culture, see whether it existed and deal with it?

Liam Fox: I hope that we have shown by our very approach to this subject that we are willing to do so. I was not willing to accept an assurance that everything had been checked and everything was fine, which was why we set up this inquiry in the first place. Too many experienced people in the House had spoken to me as we all discussed the matter and said that they felt intuitively unhappy and worried that an injustice had happened. It says a lot for Members of Parliament that when they intuitively felt that uncomfortable, we did not simply accept what had gone before but sought to take an independent and rigorous view of how it should be addressed.

Thomas Docherty: Does the Secretary of State propose to review not just the methodology of transportation but the purpose of moving such a large number of personnel?

Liam Fox: It is of course perfectly reasonable to have large collections of those with the appropriate expertise when necessary, but it is also incumbent upon those who organise such events to ask whether they really need to have so many personnel with that level of knowledge in one place, especially with modern electronic communication capabilities.

Peter Bone: I know personally that RAF Chinook pilots are highly skilled, highly professional and of the highest integrity. In Afghanistan today, Chinook pilots will be putting their lives at risk, and the Secretary of State’s statement today will be widely welcomed by them.

Liam Fox: I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend, as he is the father of one such brave Chinook pilot, who deserves praise as one of the very large number on whom so much of our national security depends.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the report. I have had the occasion over the years to meet some of the families who lost loved ones. We certainly sympathise greatly with them, and I agree with his sentiments about them. Can the Secretary of State confirm that each of the families who have lost loved ones, who have waited for so long—17 years—for a conclusion to this saga and this tragedy will have all the conclusions and recommendations of the report made available directly to them, so that they can in some way have some closure?

Liam Fox: As I said, I intend that not only a full copy of the report, with all its recommendations, but a copy of what has been said in the House today will be available to all those families, so that they can see the redress of the injustice, what we have done to investigate the issue fully and the warm and welcome words of Members on both sides of the House.

Alan Reid: This was a terrible tragedy that took place in my constituency, and it was made all the worse for the relatives by their long 17-year wait for the announcement that we have heard today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing the review board, and I congratulate its members and all those who have campaigned for so many years to overturn the unjust verdict. What procedures are in place so that if in future a verdict is subject to so much challenge, including by a fatal accident inquiry, it can be reviewed much more quickly?

Liam Fox: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), we set up a mechanism that seemed to be effective, that was relatively quick and that was able to identify the weakness that previous inquiries had failed to identify. As a House, we should look to see why it was effective when others were not, and learn from that procedure.

Naomi Long: I welcome the outcome of the inquiry and commend the Secretary of State and the Government for the actions that they have taken in bringing long-awaited vindication to the families concerned. The Secretary of State has said that we will never know the cause of the disaster. However, he also said that two requests were made by Flight Lieutenant Tapper and refused. Is he satisfied that such requests are, and indeed were, given full consideration, and would be in future?

Liam Fox: It is impossible for me to say how much consideration was given to a particular request so many years ago, but I would hope that if a pilot expressed worry about his lack, or perceived lack, of experience in such a mission, that would be dealt with sympathetically by those in command.
	May I say finally that I am sure the families themselves, whom I met before the statement today, will be very grateful to all Members for their warm words and for the way in which they have welcomed this report today?

Point of Order

Luciana Berger: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance further to the serious concerns raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). During my Westminster Hall debate on housing market renewal scheme cancellation, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), described representations by hon. Members on behalf of constituents who are living in the most appalling conditions as “sob stories”.
	However, when we consulted Hansard after the debate, the word “sob” had been removed. When I checked Hansard again this morning, I found that the phrase “sob stories” had been replaced with “different stories”. Having watched back the video, it is absolutely clear that the Minister used the phrase “sob stories”, which vulnerable people trapped in tragic circumstances will find a deeply offensive way to refer to their plight. Is there any way, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you or your good offices could look again at this issue? The record is an inaccurate representation of what was said during the debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: My understanding is that this was raised yesterday with Mr Speaker, who has promised to look into it and is going to come back on the matter. I am sure the Editor of Hansard will have heard what the hon. Lady has to say and will look into the matter as a matter of urgency.

Youth Employment

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Stephen McCabe: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a programme to provide training and employment opportunities for unemployed young people between the ages of 16 and 25; to establish a comprehensive careers guidance service for young people seeking to enter the job market; to enable Apprenticeship Training Agencies to assist small businesses in employing apprentices; to provide small businesses with a National Insurance contributions holiday; to make provision for grants towards the wage costs of apprentices employed by small businesses; to make provision for a mechanism through which banks and other providers of financial services are required to allocate part of their bonus payment budget to support these measures; and for connected purposes.
	Obviously, I welcome the small reduction in the figures announced today, but the truth is that we do not really know how high youth unemployment is in this country. The Prince’s Trust, which does such fantastic work with young people, claims that there are enough unemployed young people to fill every football stadium in the premier league, with almost 200,000 left queuing outside. It is true that youth unemployment is now much higher than it was in the second quarter of 2010. About 1,300 young people in my Selly Oak constituency are known to be unemployed. We also know that we now have the highest youth unemployment since 1992, and that one in five young people are unemployed.
	John Philpott, the chief economic adviser of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, argues that the best way to understand the full impact of unemployment on young people is to look at those not in education, employment or training. Helpfully, the Department for Education publishes those figures quarterly, and we can see from its statistics that youth unemployment is hovering around the 1 million mark. That is too high for a civilised society and a modern economy. How can we be optimistic about the future if we are prepared to subject our young people to a life of worklessness? How can parents have faith in a Government who are willing to let this happen? I witnessed it happen to a generation in the 1980s, and I do not want to see it happen again. That is why I am arguing that we need a fresh initiative to tackle the problem.
	I want us to create a training and employment programme for those aged 16 to 25, because I believe that that is the only realistic way to tackle a problem of that size. That kind of unemployment can have long-term damaging effects. It is estimated that a period of unemployment at the beginning of someone’s career can have a significant scarring effect through their entire working life. Bell and Blanchflower argue that unemployment when young, especially for a lengthy period, causes permanent scars. It raises the probability of being unemployed in later years and institutionalises a wage penalty over the course of a lifetime.
	Those effects are much greater for younger people than for older people. Gregg and Tominey used the national child development study to argue that youth unemployment imposes an impact on individuals’ wages of 12% to 15% by the age of 42. Inactive young people are also more likely to be involved in crime, and significantly more likely to be unemployed later in life, as well as
	having a higher propensity for physical and mental health problems, and drug and alcohol abuse. We owe it to our young people to do everything we can to prevent that scar of unemployment.
	We need an employment programme that offers hope and opportunity, and we need training designed to address the structural gaps in our system. There needs to be more focus on science, technology, engineering and maths to help to reduce some of the mismatches between young people and employers. STEM skills are essential in sectors that are key to the future of UK competitiveness, such as IT, pharmaceuticals and high-value manufacturing, yet two fifths of employers report difficulties in recruiting STEM-skilled staff.
	As part of a sustained programme to tackle youth unemployment, we also need to sort out the mess that has developed in careers advice and support for young people, especially the vulnerable and those whom we describe as NEETs. This is exactly the wrong time for the confusion and doubt sweeping the country as the Connexions organisation reels under the weight of local government cuts. We were told that cuts in the Department for Education area grant would have a limited impact, but we now see careers advice across the country decimated. In Birmingham the jobs of 200 Connexions staff are in doubt, and in some parts of the country provision is already being reduced to little more than online advice and a telephone help service. Barnardo’s, which specialises in work with vulnerable young people, says that it is extremely concerned that the closure of Connexions centres will leave many young people without advice and support this summer.
	When the Tory party talked about an “all-age careers service” in its pre-coalition, pre-election manifesto—we should remember that that is what people thought they were voting for—I wonder how many realised that that was code for transferring specialised support to Jobcentre Plus advisers. I am sure that those advisers do a good job, but they do not have specialised skills in working with young people, and of course they can work only with the 16 and 17-year-olds who receive jobseeker’s allowance, which means they will not be helping the vulnerable, such as the NEETs, and those who too easily slip through the net.
	The Federation of Small Businesses, whose knowledge and experience of small businesses we should listen to, is calling for a nationwide effort to encourage apprenticeship training agencies to act as host employers for small businesses. It points out that only 8% of small businesses have taken on an apprentice in the past year, but that 14% would be encouraged to do so if a separate organisation dealt with matters such as training, administration and employment.
	The FSB is urging the National Apprenticeship Service in England to promote the benefits of apprenticeship training agencies to small and micro-businesses. It is also calling for a national insurance contributions holiday to help small businesses to give our youngsters a chance. The current national insurance holiday helps only start-ups that employ up to 10 people. It may come as a surprise to hon. Members, but start-ups employing 10 people are not common—the FSB says that most of its 205,000 members actually employ five or fewer staff.
	Government data suggest that about 3,000 businesses are benefiting from the current scheme, but the Government promised that 300,000 businesses would be set up as a result of it. That suggests that money is available to help micro-businesses that employ five or fewer staff. Ultimately, the Treasury would benefit from extending a national insurance holiday, because more people would pay tax.
	Youth unemployment costs more than £23 million in benefits every week, and lost productivity costs about £10 million a day: £600 million pounds would be enough to fund 100,000 young people directly, and perhaps more, in a proper Government work and training programme. It could also be used to stimulate businesses, which could mean that 10,000 more youngsters were given a chance.
	The public are ahead of us on this matter, because they know that we should fund such a programme from a levy on the money set aside for unearned bonuses for wealthy bankers, who are continuing to pay themselves money that they have not earned while the rest of the country suffers as a result. I commend the Bill to the House.

John McDonnell: It is with deep regret that I oppose this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). I realise that his plan is well intentioned, but it contains several serious weaknesses, and in one instance a literally fatal flaw.
	The first of my concerns are relatively minor, but they still need to be addressed. My hon. Friend proposes to re-establish the careers service scrapped by the previous Government—the Connexions service—but regrettably the proposals are not specific about the scale or location of that service. They do not explain who would be responsible, how it would be paid for or how many members of staff would be employed. They are too general on those matters. They also propose the establishment of apprenticeship training agencies to assist small business—but, to be frank, it is not small businesses that will provide apprenticeships. The bigger gains will come from large employers, which are not pulling their weight at the moment in developing apprenticeships. I regret therefore that my hon. Friend’s proposals do not focus on the large employers.
	The outline proposals also say that there will be an inducement to small firms in the form of national insurance cuts and grants to small businesses. I have some anxieties about that, because in the three most recent Finance Bills both the previous Government and the present Government have significantly reduced corporation tax for small businesses and increased capital allowances. My hon. Friend also said that his proposals would be funded by bonus payments to banks and the financial services, which would subsidise the development of apprenticeships. I fully agree with part of that, although it would have been better had he supported my amendment to the Finance Bill on the Robin Hood tax—but perhaps he succumbed to pressure from the shadow Chancellor, as did other Members.
	My main concern about the proposals for the Bill, however, is about the lack of reference to a key question about apprenticeships: how can they be made safe on the shop floor? That was one of the key issues addressed
	by the previous Government, so I regret that my hon. Friend made no reference to it in either his outline proposals or his speech. The previous Government promoted apprenticeships from 1997 onwards, and in the early 2000s the numbers expanded greatly. We all supported that—it was supported across the House—but one element was not put in place: the implementation of health and safety measures when apprenticeships went on to the shop floor.
	In 2003 nine apprentices died as a result of a lack of health and safety measures in the companies in which they were placed. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), who was then the skills Minister, rightly brought in the civil servants, identified the problem and allocated resources—under legislation and with duties attached—to the Learning and Skills Council, which were then inherited by the Skills Funding Agency. A team of staff were appointed to go into firms where apprentices were placed and carry out a health and safety assessment. In that way, we reduced nine fatalities a year to none. However, that problem is not addressed in my hon. Friend’s proposals.
	Since securing health and safety protection for apprentices we have maintained an excellent record, but there is a tragedy waiting to happen. The very staff whom the previous Government appointed—a small unit of 25 in the Skills Funding Agency—are to be sacked in September. Regrettably, the Bill does not address that issue. I would have expected my hon. Friend to include in his proposals a further statutory duty for any proposed apprenticeship training agency to ensure that health and safety are respected and promoted.
	It is a matter of regret that these members of staff, who came to meet us yesterday, are to be sacked in September. None of them will be available for the implementation of the Bill. There will be no inspections of workshops, factories or offices, or wherever else apprentices are to be placed. As a result, I predict that there would be a return of injuries and fatalities, and I believe that the House would have some responsibility for those deaths. I would therefore expect my hon. Friend to insert into his Bill a clause giving any Government seeking to develop apprenticeship schemes a further legal duty to ensure that whenever an apprentice is recruited there is a duty of care to ensure that wherever the apprentice is placed complies with health and safety legislation.
	The argument that the Government have put, and which might be made in the debate on the Bill, is that the job of the Health and Safety Executive is to ensure that a health and safety regime exits in such companies. I am afraid that that is no longer the case. As a result of the cuts that the Government are implementing, the reduction in staffing for health and safety and the threat from the recent White Paper, health and safety inspections no longer take place on the same scale. That means that when apprentices recruited under this legislation entered the workplace, they would be at serious risk. I would therefore expect any legislation promoting the recruitment of apprentices—I fully agree with apprenticeships, because they ensure that people get a decent training—at least to establish a duty to ensure that those apprentices are safe.
	In 2003, when nine youngsters died, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South took advice from a range of experts—we can offer the correspondence to the
	Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning—and that advice was very straightforward: we needed to take additional responsibility to protect the health and safety of apprentices going out to work. These people are not experienced workers and are therefore even more at risk than those who have been in the workplace before, so we have a special responsibility. Legislation is being promoted that we hope the Government will accept, which would vastly expand the recruitment of apprentices and opportunities for young people—particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, for those not in education, employment or training, who are the people most desperately in need of work and apprenticeships of this sort. If we undertake an expansion on that scale, we have a responsibility to ensure that those youngsters are safe.
	The ten-minute rule Bill unfortunately does not address that issue. I hope that this debate will enable my hon. Friend to reconsider the matter and propose a more appropriate Bill that addresses this issue. More importantly, I hope that the Government are listening. In less than 12 weeks, the health and safety team in the Skills Funding Agency will be sacked. As a result, youngsters will be put at risk. I urge the Government to think again on this matter, because as a result of that action we could revert to 2003, and I remember the nine fatalities that occurred as a result of inappropriate protection for those youngsters, as we expanded the apprenticeship scheme at that time.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that although this Bill is well intentioned, although it has good elements and although he has clearly identified a range of issues that need to be addressed, this is not the appropriate way to go about it. I do not believe that he has identified the appropriate mechanism, nor do I believe that he has addressed all the issues, in particular the health and safety of the youngsters concerned. I would urge him to take his proposals back, redraft them and engage in a dialogue with the Government. Let us examine the issue with the staff who are about to be sacked. Let us try to put in place appropriate protection for those youngsters, so that when we give them an apprenticeship not only will they receive training, but they will be protected and appropriate health and safety measures will be in place to ensure their security.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
	The House divided:
	Ayes 241, Noes 35.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Steve McCabe, Mr Jim Cunningham, Valerie Vaz, Ms Gisela Stuart, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Siobhain McDonagh, Kate Hoey, Mr Frank Field, Richard Burden Kate Green, Jim Sheridan and Mr Iain Wright present the Bill.
	Steve McCabe accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 219).

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 13 September and 24 November 2010 (Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (Programme) and Fixed-term Parliaments Bill (Programme) (No. 2):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(James Duddridge.)
	Question agreed to.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436, and the Government response, Cm 7951.]
	Consideration of Lords amendments.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Polling days for parliamentary general elections

Mark Harper: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we may take Lords amendments 2 and 9.

Mark Harper: I should like to make it clear that I am proposing that the House disagrees with their lordships on amendments 1, 2 and 9, and I shall set out the reasons for that. For the benefit of Members who have not had the chance to study the amendments in detail, they provide that the provisions in this excellent Bill be subject to a sunset clause after the next general election. Each subsequent Parliament would have the choice of whether to be a fixed-term Parliament or not. The Government want to oppose the amendments because we think that they fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which was welcomed by, among others, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of this House. I see a member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) sort of agreeing with me on the Opposition Benches.
	In bringing forward the Bill, we are seeking to put in place a provision that we hope will become an established part of our constitutional arrangements—namely, that fixed-term Parliaments for this UK Parliament become the norm, just as they are for local government, for the devolved legislatures and for the European Parliament. Two of the most important things in the Bill—in the form that the Government would like it to take—are, first, the proposal for an ability to deny the Executive the ability to choose a date for a general election to suit their own ends and to ensure that the Prime Minister gives up that power for the first time, and, secondly, to deliver certainty on how long a Parliament will last, which will benefit not only parliamentarians but the public.

Tristram Hunt: Was the Minister disappointed, as I was, that their lordships did not seek to alter the limit for the fixed-term Parliament from five years to four years, which seems to be what the majority of the British public would like?

Mark Harper: I was not in the slightest disappointed that this House and the House of Lords—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We must stick to the amendments.

Mark Harper: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My short answer is that I was not disappointed.

Charles Walker: rose—

William Cash: rose—

Mark Harper: I will give way in a moment.
	If the Lords amendments were accepted, the electorate would have no certainty as to how long the Parliament that they will elect on 7 May 2015 would last. Such certainty, and the principle behind the Bill, have been welcomed by many electoral administrators and by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister tell the House where that desire for public certainty in relation to a five-year Parliament comes from? Does he think that there would be huge upset in 2015 if people were suddenly to discover that the Parliament might run for only four years—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could let us know which part of the amendment he is referring to.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The polling that has been carried out suggests that the public support fixed-term Parliaments. Indeed, if we think back to the previous Parliament, there was a general sense, both in the House and among the public and commentators, that the “will he, won’t he” debate about whether the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) would call an election on becoming Prime Minister was not helpful to good Government or to good democratic accountability. It will be helpful to have greater certainty, as that will benefit us all. Let us ask ourselves this question: if the Bill became law, and fixed-term Parliaments became the norm, would any Minister realistically be able to come to the Dispatch Box and suggest with a straight face that we should change the position and give the power back to the Prime Minister to hold an election at a time of his choosing to suit his political party? Would anyone take that proposition seriously? I suggest that they would not.

William Cash: Has it occurred to the Minister that part of the problem with this wretched Bill is that it is trying to organise things to suit the requirements of this coalition? Decisions on the future should actually be down to the public at large, and if they want to get rid of a Parliament, they will do so in their own way. That is where the question of a confidence motion starts to kick in.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are not dealing with the whole Bill; we are dealing with the amendments. I am sure that the Minister will take that into account in his answer.

Mark Harper: To be fair to my hon. Friend, Mr Deputy Speaker, he was speaking to the amendments that we are discussing. He made the assertion that our proposals would suit this particular Government during this particular Parliament, but that is simply not the case. If the Prime Minister wanted to ensure that this Parliament ran for the full five years and that the general election took place on 7 May 2015, he would need to do only one thing—namely, not approach Her Majesty the Queen to seek a Dissolution before that date. We could thereby achieve a five-year Parliament for this Parliament, but we want to make a change to our constitutional
	processes—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) does not agree with it—to remove from Prime Ministers the ability to choose the date of a general election.
	The second part of my hon. Friend’s question effectively suggested that a sunset provision would be a good thing. Under our democratic system, the public elect Members of Parliament for a term. At the moment, they do not have a choice about when the general election will be; the sole decision about that sits with the Prime Minister. The Bill seeks to give that power to Members of this democratically elected House. I would have thought that my hon. Friend, as a champion of parliamentary control of the Executive, would welcome that proposition.

William Cash: I can assure my hon. Friend that the real question is not whether the Prime Minister wants to call a general election, but what the state of the country is and whether there is a sense of urgency among the public at large. That can force a general election, irrespective of whether a Prime Minister wants to pull the plug.

Mark Harper: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is simply not right. That is not the current constitutional position. The current position is that for a period of time during which a Government have the confidence of this House, the only person who decides whether there should be a general election—assuming that we have not reached the end of the Parliament—is the Prime Minister, who seeks a Dissolution from Her Majesty the Queen. Members of Parliament, unless they vote down the Government on a vote of confidence, do not have that power. The general public certainly do not have that power.

Richard Shepherd: The Minister’s proposition was a much disputed one. It was thought at one stage that Mr Major, when Prime Minister, was prepared to call a general election during the difficulties surrounding Maastricht. The argument put by people like Robert Rhodes James was that it was a matter for the Cabinet as a whole to give the Prime Minister the authority to go to the Queen—a more collective approach. The coarse person, the Back Bencher on the streets—or rather the Benches here—would argue that the Cabinet at the time would have thrown themselves in front of John Major’s car if he went to Buckingham palace, as the last thing the Conservative party could bear at that juncture was a general election. It is a process; that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is talking about. The Prime Minister is not the only person who can determine a general election. That is the ebb and flow of real politics, which is what this House is about. That is why, as I am sure the Minister will understand, there is opposition to some of the propositions in the Bill.

Mark Harper: I am not sure that I want to conjure up visions of Cabinet Ministers throwing themselves in front of prime ministerial cars, which is not a happy thought—[Interruption.]  Some of the comments from Opposition Members are unworthy of them. Let me explain what I do not understand about my hon. Friend’s point. He is arguing, I think, for decisions about the timing of general elections to be a more collegiate effort, rather than just the choice of the Prime Minister—but that is exactly what the Bill does. It takes away from the Prime Minister the power to call a general election by
	asking the Queen for a Dissolution and gives that power to Members. Two thirds of them can choose to have an early election for any reason, including general concerns about the state of the country, which deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. Having this Bill in place would allow that to happen, which cannot be done today. The other way of bringing about an election is the Government losing a vote of confidence. That is why the Government believe that the Bill should be in place; it should not be up to each individual Parliament to decide whether the Bill should remain in force. That is why we oppose these sunset clauses.
	We think that the real threat presented by the amendments is that they could create a scenario in which political parties, and specifically the Government party, could choose in each Parliament, even at its beginning, whether that Parliament should be a fixed-term one. As the Bill is currently drafted, both Houses would have to vote in favour of the Fixed-term Parliament Bill kicking into place at any time during the Parliament. I simply do not think that that is a very sensible proposition. It would mean that Governments would have a way of manipulating the timetable. We should think it through. If both Houses have to vote in favour of a motion for a fixed-term Parliament to be in place, a Government with a majority could simply refuse to pass that motion—and we would effectively have given back to the Prime Minister the ability to call an election. That would not be a positive step forward.
	It is important to note that when this House and the other place were legislating for the fixed terms of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was not thought appropriate to have sunset clauses. We did not give those legislatures the opportunity to pick and choose each time how long their terms of office should be. I do not believe that doing so makes sense now.

William Cash: When it comes to these Assemblies and other devolved organisations, we respect them, but the analogy the Minister is making could just as well be applied to a parish council.

Mark Harper: That is not an analogy I would make with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. When this House made decisions about setting up those bodies, we did not think it appropriate to give them the power to pick and choose their term of office. We set it out in the legislation that set the bodies up.
	I am curious to know what the supporters of the Lords amendment think would happen if the next Parliament decided that it did not want a fixed term. It is not very clear from the amendments, how exactly the mechanisms would work. I shall take Members through the Lords amendments shortly and explain how I think they would work.
	It has been suggested that a sunset clause would ensure that the issue of fixed-term Parliaments and the merits of this particular Bill would be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. That is not necessary, however. This legislation has already been scrutinised by four Select Committees: the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated
	Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that any one of those Select Committees or another Select Committee will subject the Bill to some form of post-legislative scrutiny, which is something that the Government would welcome. I do not think that these sunset clauses, however, would lead to that type of sensible scrutiny.
	I said that I would look at the effect of the Lords amendments on the working of the Bill. Lords amendment 9 talks about a resolution having to be
	“approved by each House of Parliament”.
	That is fairly straightforward. The most unclear provisions relate to section 7(4), stating that a number of parts of the Bill will have effect
	“only until the first meeting of the… Parliament”,
	which would then decide whether to bring those provisions in. The provisions on early elections and confidence votes would not be clear and it would not be clear how Parliament would be dissolved. The schedule, which has a number of consequential amendments, would also not be in force. The schedule, which repeals the Septennial Act and a whole load of other provisions, would effectively cease to be in force and, presumably, all the repeals and amendments would be unrepealed and unamended. We would then end up with a very complicated constitutional proposition.

Chris Bryant: Unless I misheard the Minister, he referred to section 7(4) of the Bill. I cannot find a section 7(4).

Mark Harper: I am looking at the copy of the Bill as amended on Report from the House of Lords, which does have a section 7. It is the final provision section. It is the bit that is dealt with by one of the Lords amendments that we are debating. I think that the amendment will be confusing. It will make many of our constitutional provisions unclear. I do not believe that those who tabled the amendments and voted for them in the other place have fully thought through how they would work in practice.
	Another important issue is the relationship that would be created between this House and the other place if the amendments stay in the Bill. The importance of establishing the primacy of this House came out clearly in our debate on the Government’s proposals on House of Lords reform. The amendments would give the House and the other place the ability to vote on whether we have a fixed-term Parliament, without going through the normal legislative process. That could lead to an unfortunate scenario in which this House voted overwhelmingly in favour of the motion that we have a fixed-term Parliament and that the provisions of the Bill, if passed, come into force, while the currently unelected House failed to vote for the motion, so we would not have a fixed-term Parliament. Important decisions about elections in this country, fixed-term Parliaments, the confidence procedures and the ability to trigger early general elections would effectively be made by the unelected House, and that would diminish the power of elected Members.

Chris Bryant: The Minister’s example is completely wrong. If this House voted—on the basis of the Government’s and, therefore, the Prime Minister’s
	majority—for a fixed-term Parliament, and the other place did not vote for a fixed-term Parliament, whether there would be an early election would be in the hands of the Prime Minister. The will of this House would always have carried.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman confuses the will of the House and the will of the Prime Minister. The scenario that I set out stands. If the other place had chosen not to vote for fixed-term Parliaments, we would not have a fixed-term Parliament, despite this House having voted in favour, and that would give back to the Prime Minister the ability solely to decide whether there should be an election. We would have taken powers away from Members of this House who had voted, perhaps overwhelmingly, to ensure that the Bill was in force. We would have been thwarted by their lordships. Given the importance to Members of the primacy of this House, that effectively moves power in the opposite direction, which Members will find unwelcome.

William Cash: I appreciate that the Minister is a Minister of the Crown, but he would get into difficult territory if he suggested that the Prime Minister is a Prime Minister without the confidence of the House of Commons, which is more or less what he has just been saying.

Mark Harper: That is not what I said at all. My specific point is about the relative powers of the two Houses, but the point stands that if we do not have a fixed-term Parliament, we give back to the Prime Minister the power to call an early election. To repeat my example, the amendments would mean that both Houses must vote positively in favour of resurrecting the provisions of the Bill. I want the other place also to be elected—I know that my hon. Friend does not—but under the amendments the elected House, despite having voted by an overwhelming margin, could be thwarted by the unelected House, and the provisions of the Bill would not be in force. The will of the House of Commons, having said that it did not want the Prime Minister to have the power to call an early election, and that it wanted that power to be held by Members of this House, would have been thwarted by the other place. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not agree with that.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister for engaging in dialogue on this question, but the assumption, at any rate in the mind of the Deputy Prime Minister, is that proposals for reform of the House of Lords will go through by the end of this Parliament. The arguments to which the Minister refers, therefore, will effectively expire when the arrangements for this fixed-year Parliament come to an end.

Mark Harper: I disagree with my hon. Friend. Even if we successfully push our proposals through in their current form, and we have the first set of such elections in 2015, most Members of the other place will still be unelected. Secondly, regardless of how many Members of the other place are elected, we are talking about primacy. Effectively, the amendments would move power away from this House to the other place. Whatever one’s views about House of Lords reform, I picked up clearly from our earlier debate that most Members of
	this place want it to be clear that this place has primacy over their lordships’ House. The amendments, perhaps inadvertently, would lead to a different situation.

Robert Syms: Under the Bill, a large number of Members of the House must vote for a Dissolution. The person who decides whether there is a general election is, therefore, the Leader of the Opposition, because if the Government and the Opposition want a Dissolution, it happens. Under the amendments, the House of Lords would effectively be taking power away from the Leader of the Opposition, who would be in a position to provide the numbers for a Dissolution.

Mark Harper: I agree. The fact remains that we are taking powers away from this House and giving them to the other place. It has been clear to me from our earlier debates that that view is not widely shared in this House, and indeed, interestingly, it does not appear to be widely shared in the other place. As I observed from careful reading of the report of the debates there, many speakers were very concerned about the primacy of this House, which was good of them. They said that they did not want to damage it in any way. Plainly their support for the amendments was inadvertent; they may not have thought through the consequences fully. I therefore think it would be sensible for this House to disagree with their Lordships, and to give them an opportunity to reconsider their decision and return the Bill to the form in which it left this House.

Mark Durkan: I recognise the strength of the Minister’s arguments. The effect of the amendments, surely, would be to leave us with not a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but a Fixable-term Parliaments Bill. We could get into a constitutional “fix” in trying to “fix” the term, with an elected Chamber voting one way and an—in all likelihood—still unelected Chamber voting another way. If that happened, what would be the default position?

Mark Harper: I agree. The hon. Gentleman has put it very well. Under the Bill as the Government want to see it—this House having disagreed with their Lordships, and their Lordships having accepted that the Bill should remain as it is—its provisions would be in force unless and until a future Parliament changed them. It would be this House that would determine whether an early election should take place if two thirds of Members, that is, a broad consensus, were in favour of it—which returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about what would happen if there were a general view that the state of the nation was such that there should be an early election—or if the Government no longer had the confidence of this House. The other place would have no role in that process at all, which I think is right.
	As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, if the amendments were in force there would be a “fix” in each Parliament: each Government would effectively be able to choose whether to have a fixed-term Parliament, because they could block the motion passed by this House. Worse, it would not be a choice that the Houses took at the start of a Parliament, because the amendments make no provision for that. At any point during the Parliament, the two Houses, if they passed the motion, could suddenly convert the Parliament to a fixed term. That would be
	likely to lead to the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, with people putting a fix in place to suit a particular short-term need.

Mark Durkan: Does any provision in the Lords amendments or the Bill specify or restrict who can table such a motion in either House, and when or how many times it could be tabled again if whoever tables it does not succeed on the first occasion?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. The provisions are completely silent about that. They do not say who would table the motion, or whether the same question could be continually repeated.
	The amendments are not very well drafted. I think that they are wrong in principle, because under the normal procedure legislation that is passed stays in force unless it is changed by a future Parliament, but even if we liked the concept of a sunset provision, such a provision ought to be much better drafted and much more effective. This House can choose only between accepting the amendments and disagreeing with them, and I think I have almost made my case that we should disagree with them.
	It has been argued that we are trying to bind future Parliaments. That is not what we are trying to do at all. We are merely trying to re-establish the normal constitutional position. We are passing legislation which we hope will become the established position, but if a future Parliament, perhaps the next one, decides that the fixed-term Parliament experiment—an experiment that is common to many countries around the world—has not been successful and has not led to better government, it will be perfectly free to pass another piece of legislation that repeals these measures either in full or in part. We do not have an arrangement whereby we “sunset” every piece of legislation, and an incoming Government then finds that the rules are unwritten and they can choose what those rules should be. That would not be a very sensible constitutional position.

William Cash: Without going into all the questions relating to judicial supremacy and the claims of ultimate authority by certain members of the judiciary, I am afraid that through this measure and a number of others the Government have opened the door to the possibility—indeed the likelihood, as Lord Bingham made clear—of certain members of the Supreme Court interpreting legislation in a way that suits their ultimate authority, as they claim it.

Mark Harper: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are straying quite a long way from the amendment. I am sure the Minister was about to point that out.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s points are probably more relevant to the next group of amendments, when we will talk about adding some specific provisions to the Bill, so he might want to raise them then. If he does so, I shall be able to address them in an orderly way.
	The Opposition supported the sunset provisions in the other place, and I anticipate that they will do so again today, so I want to point out why I think they
	would be wrong. Effectively, the sunset provisions drive a coach and horses through the principle of the Bill. On 24 November last year, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said:
	“I want to reaffirm our commitment”
	—the Labour party’s commitment—
	“to fixed-term Parliaments. That means we have to lay down in statute that it is for the House, not the Prime Minister, to dissolve Parliament.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 328.]
	I agree, but under these sunset provisions at the end of this Parliament we would give back to the Prime Minister the power to dissolve Parliament by seeking a Dissolution from Her Majesty the Queen. I do not think that that is in accordance with what the hon. Gentleman said then.
	There are a number of other useful quotes. The Labour party manifesto of last year stated that
	“we will legislate for Fixed Term Parliaments…We will let the people decide how to reform our institutions and our politics: changing the voting system and electing a second chamber to replace the House of Lords.”
	I do not agree with the first, but I do agree with the second.
	“But we will go further, introducing fixed-term parliaments”.
	Furthermore, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said that a vote for Labour was a vote for fixed-term Parliaments.
	I accept that Labour did not win the election, but it seems to me that if the hon. Member for Rhondda is going to carry out the spirit of that commitment, all the people who voted Labour at the last election will expect him to vote in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. If he does not agree to disagree with their Lordships, he will not be carrying out that manifesto commitment.

Graham Stringer: I have not read the Conservative party manifesto recently, but so far as I remember it did not contain a commitment to fixed-term Parliaments. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman were to take his own advice, he would withdraw his support for the Bill.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman sets me up very nicely for my final quotation. In this Bill’s Second Reading debate—which took place a long time ago, on 13 September 2010, which goes to show that the Bill has enjoyed leisurely progress through both Houses with proper scrutiny in both Chambers—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said:
	“I have long been in favour of fixed terms. I could dig out correspondence I had with Margaret Thatcher in 1983 about fixed terms. The Labour party committed itself to fixed terms in the 1992 election. What typically happens—this is why I welcome the measure and why I wanted that commitment in our manifesto—is that parties in opposition that are in favour of fixed terms go off the boil on them when they come into government.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 645.]
	Interestingly, we have done the opposite. We were not very keen on them in opposition, but we have become keener on them in government, and this was in our coalition agreement.

Richard Shepherd: rose —

Charles Walker: rose—

Mark Harper: My comments seem to have provoked interest. I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd).

Richard Shepherd: I am startled by my hon. Friend’s line of argument. I did toil through our election manifesto, and I saw no pledge or undertaking at all to have a fixed-term Parliament, and least of all a fixed-term Parliament for five years, so what is his line of argument?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend rightly says that we did not have a commitment to do this, but equally we had not promised not to do it. The case was made to us that there was a good case for fixed-term Parliaments, provision was made for them in the coalition agreement and we brought the measure before the House. When good arguments are made, wise Governments listen to them and introduce these very sensible measures. They do not contradict anything that we had in our manifesto. It is usual for Governments to introduce proposals that were not in their manifesto when sensible arguments are made for them. That is a perfectly sensible proposition.

William Cash: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will say that the sensible basis on which this amazing commitment has suddenly emerged is that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of fixed-term Parliaments. So here we go again with the tail wagging the dog.

Mark Harper: I would not characterise the relationship like that at all. A good case was made, and on this particular issue the Prime Minister has demonstrated tremendous leadership. He is the first Prime Minister to give up the power—a power that was his personally—to seek a Dissolution from Her Majesty the Queen. That improves our arrangements, because we now know the date of the election and so for the last year of this Parliament we will not have the “will he, won’t he” proposition, where everyone is trying to second-guess when the election will be and people are arguing about when the best time is for the party or parties in government. That is an incredibly powerful step forward and it is very welcome.

Charles Walker: rose—

Mark Harper: I promised earlier to give way to my hon. Friend.

Charles Walker: The current system has served us pretty well for 350 years. The Minister cites other Parliaments around the world that have been established for perhaps 20 or 30 years at best. Perhaps they would be best advised to follow our example, as opposed to us following their example.

Mark Harper: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not believe that the general public support the exercise that we go through in the run-up to the end of a Parliament, where we enter the “will he, won’t he” argument. We all know—this came out clearly in the debate in the other place from some who had been close to these decisions—that the decision that is taken, perfectly honourably, is about how best the Prime Minister can choose the date to maximise the chance of their party being re-elected. I simply do not think that that is a good basis on which the decision should be made, and I think that our approach is an improvement.

Angus MacNeil: I support the Minister’s point. Even if it is Parliaments around the world that are only 20 or 30 years old that have adopted fixed-term Parliaments, it is interesting that they did not adopt the system that we have here, despite its longevity. They probably saw the errors in our system and were not going to start from here when deciding how to run their parliamentary terms.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said, when this House decided to legislate to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it did not think that it was right to have variable terms; it decided that it was sensible to have fixed terms. If this House thought that that was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.
	Let me finish by reading out the following quote from the right hon. Member for Blackburn. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central rightly says that I have already read out the quote, but I wanted to set out the conclusion that the Labour party should draw from it. The right hon. Gentleman said that
	“parties in opposition that are in favour of fixed terms go off the boil on them when they come into government.” —[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 645.]
	The Labour party is in danger of doing the opposite. It is in danger of being committed to this proposition when it was in government and then going off the boil on it when in opposition. The party should reconsider. In the time before the House is asked to make a decision on this, I hope that the Labour party will decide that we should disagree with their lordships on this group of amendments.

Chris Bryant: I am afraid that the Minister did not impress me with his arguments. In particular, he referred to the fact that the Conservative manifesto did not contain anything about introducing fixed-term Parliaments and then said that when good arguments come along people should bow to them. As far as I can see, the only good argument that came along was that the Liberal Democrats would not support the Government unless there was a fixed-term Parliament element in the coalition agreement. So the only reason why we have this Bill, particularly in its current form, is because of the attempt to create the coalition and then to keep it going for five years.
	The Minister then tried to tease me a little with the idea that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said that he wanted people who voted for Labour to be voting for fixed-term Parliaments. This amendment would allow us to vote in every Parliament for fixed-term Parliaments, so it gives more opportunities for people to vote for them, rather than fewer.

William Cash: Does the shadow Minister agree that the Bill has all the elements of an attempt to achieve a sort of permanent coalition arrangement? In fact, if one were to look at the current state of affairs, one might feel some sympathy for those on our side of the House who have found as a result of the mistakes that have been made by them and by others that they are now low in the polls and that the 56 seats that they won at the last general election might by all accounts be fewer than 20 if those opinion polls were to be believed.

Chris Bryant: I think I agree with that, but I am not entirely sure. The bit I agreed with was in feeling sympathy for those on the Government side of the House.
	The three amendments we are discussing come as a package. In essence, they are all there to do the same thing: to say that the present arrangements will remain, so that the coalition gets to hold itself together until to 2015, but that after the next general election and at any subsequent creation of a new Parliament, unless other legislation is brought in, there would have to be a vote in both Houses for that system to remain in place. I shall come to the issue of both Houses in a moment.

Mark Harper: rose —

Chris Bryant: I was going to come to that matter in a few moments, but if the Minister wants me to come to it now I will of course give way.

Mark Harper: I wanted to question something the hon. Gentleman said. He says that at the start of each Parliament there would have to be such a motion, but that is not what the amendments say. They leave it completely open for that to happen at any point during the Parliament, and I think that would be deeply unsatisfactory.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is absolutely right. That was a small slip of mine and the vote could happen at any time. Any Government worth their salt would without a doubt table such a motion at the beginning of the Parliament so that there was clarity.
	We should also know that Lords amendment 1 was not tabled by the Labour party. It was tabled by Lord Pannick with the support of Lady Boothroyd, Lord Butler and Lord Armstrong. Their arguments carried quite a lot of weight with the House—clearly, they carried enough weight to win the vote. Lord Pannick said when moving the amendment:
	“The purpose of the amendments is to address the deep unease on all sides of the House, as expressed at Second Reading and in Committee, as to whether it is appropriate to confine the circumstances in which a general election may be called within a five-year term.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2011; Vol. 727, c. 822.]
	There has been that level of discomfort and unease in this House, too, although it was more marked down the other end. Lord Pannick also referred to the “constitutional damage” that all this might create and called the whole Bill an “unhappy Bill”. I have some sympathy with him.
	It is true that I have previously commented—and I stand by those comments—that the Labour party is committed to fixed-term Parliaments. However, we think the right way to introduce legislation on something as constitutionally significant as changing the way in which a general election is called is to engage in consultation with all the parties in this House before tabling a Bill and to introduce pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill. If the Minister had chosen to go down that route, he would have had a great deal of co-operation from Opposition Members and we would have ended up with a better piece of legislation. One issue that we might have been able to address in such circumstances is whether it is right to make the change through legislation or Standing Order, which might well have saved us from the danger of the question of calling a general election at any time being justiciable in the courts. Lord Pannick also made that point. He said that, as there had been no
	pre-legislative scrutiny, it was important that after a future general election there was an opportunity for each House to consider the matter again.

Naomi Long: One definition of “fix” is:
	“To place securely; make stable or firm”.
	Surely the Lords amendment does the reverse on two counts, in that it neither makes it the fixed position that there will be fixed-term Parliament nor sets in stone the time at which that decision would be taken by future Parliaments. What it creates is the opposite of “fixed”; it creates an insecure situation.

Chris Bryant: My contention and, I think, Lord Pannick’s contention is that this is a fix in a different way, because it is essentially rigging the constitution so as to make it possible for the coalition to remain in government until 2015—against the manifesto commitment.

Mark Durkan: rose —

Naomi Long: rose—

Chris Bryant: Let me finish my point. Lord Pannick also cited the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, which said:
	“the origins and content of this Bill owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand.”
	I think their lordships were right. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is slightly my hon. Friend.

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Earlier, he indicated to the Minister that he assumed that the resolution provided for under the amendment would be moved at the start of a Parliament on the basis that any Government worth their salt would do it then. Can he tell us what he believes any Opposition worth their salt would do in relation to such a resolution? Would not the scenario that he is arguing for, of a Government doing that at the start of a Parliament, mean that the very unedifying spectacle that we have seen in this Parliament of a Government fixing the term to suit themselves would happen in every Parliament?

Chris Bryant: I suppose it is true that every Opposition will always want to take an opportunity to have an early general election. The nature of opposition means wanting to become the Government, so the Opposition would want the chance to have a general election. I think that is the drift of what my hon. Friend said. As I have said, I think we would have a better piece of legislation if we had had pre-legislative scrutiny and had been able to sit around a table, not just with the main parties but with the smaller, minority parties too.

Naomi Long: On the issue of fixing, would it not appear to be more of a fix if the Bill affected only one Parliament in which we happen to have a coalition and then fell into abeyance and had to be resurrected for future Parliaments than if the system were changed to introduce fixed-term Parliaments on a permanent basis, thereby requiring future Governments to rescind that decision if they wanted to change it?

Chris Bryant: No, I do not accept that, because the experience over the rather sad course of this Bill has been that there has been no consultation with the Opposition about a major constitutional change. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said earlier that the system has lasted for 300 years, but I do not think it has been a good system or that it has been perfect for the British constitution, because it has on occasion allowed too much power for a Prime Minister to call a general election at his or her—well, very rarely at her—convenience. In that regard, it is better that we should proceed in a different direction. For us the key issue is whether a term should be four or five years.

Charles Walker: No system is perfect, but we have had a fairly dynamic democracy over the past 350 years and by fixing parliamentary terms we will lose some of that dynamism.

Chris Bryant: I have sympathy with that argument, but I also think that this is one of the changes towards a fixed-term Parliament that would assist in that and would be another part of the steady progress of parliamentary evolution to which he referred.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are really interesting historical analogies? I am thinking of the vote of 311 to 310 that led to Lady Thatcher’s becoming Prime Minister and of the debate after Munich on 10 May 1940. If we had had fixed-term Parliaments at those times, the whole thing would have been completely undermined despite the fact that the country was in uproar and wanted change. That would have been the case with a fixed-term Parliament of the kind that he wants as well as with one of five years.

Chris Bryant: No, I disagree, but we will come to that issue when we debate the second set of amendments about the measures concerning early general election. We have some disagreements with the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but that is a matter for us to debate later.
	One of the other problems that I have with the way the Bill is drafted and why we support the amendments that have come from their lordships is that I do not think anybody ever sat down and thought, “We have elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Do we want to align them with the elections here, or do we want to make sure that they fall on a different date?” That would have been going to constitutional first principles. What we have ended up with is adjusting the election dates for all those other assemblies. We have allowed them, in effect, to decide when their next elections will be, extending to five years, yet it may be that we have an early general election, so they will not need to go to five-year terms. We are tinkering on the back of a fag packet and that is not a good way of proceeding in relation to the constitution.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am keen to conclude my remarks.
	The Minister asked whether both Houses should decide. That goes to the heart of the matter. Yes, we believe that both Houses should decide, but if the Minister had wanted to change that, he could have tabled an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, which could have said that just as in the provisions on an early general election, there would be a vote in one House—this House. There could have been a vote in this House on whether it was a fixed-term Parliament. The Government’s response tries to bind a future Parliament in an inappropriate way. I think that is a mistake, so we will support the Lords amendment.

Robert Syms: It is this House that determines who the Government are. This is the majority House. As we know, the upper House is a hereditary or semi-hereditary Chamber. Even under the proposals for election, it will not be the majority House. It is therefore proper and responsible that this Chamber should determine whether there should be a fixed-term Parliament. That is not the business of the upper House. The decision has to be made in this House.
	The only question to debate is whether it is the Prime Minister who makes the decision or the House. Historically, it has been the Prime Minister. We have had a constitutional change. I am a conservative with a small c and I do not generally like change, but one has to acknowledge the fact that in order to command a majority in the House, the measure is part of the deal. That is a good reason for doing it. If that was not part of the deal, one would not necessarily be in government and doing many other good things for the country under our programme.
	We all know that Prime Ministers lose the confidence of the House. There are occasions when Prime Ministers are challenged, and one of the things that bolsters unpopular Prime Ministers is the threat of Dissolution. It is up to them. They can throw the cards up in the air and call a Dissolution, even if they lose the confidence of their own party. That has always been one reason why Prime Ministers have stayed in Downing street when there was good reason for moving them out and having a vote of no confidence in a political party.
	The other factor, which is one of the different features of modern politics, is that there are now more parties in the House—we have the Greens in this Parliament—more of a fracture in the current political system and more regional parties. It will probably be more difficult in the longer term for a party always to be confident of a majority in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is right. Coalitions may be more a part of the future than some of us who prefer majority government would like to think.
	The Government’s position is tailored to that situation, so I will support what they are doing today. Circumstances have changed, and if one has to make a decision, it is better that political parties and the usual channels in the House determine a Dissolution than an unpopular Prime Minister who may have a different agenda from others in the Chamber.

Mark Durkan: I am delighted to be able to agree with the thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) in relation to the key effect of the Lords amendments, which would extend the power of the House of Lords as it now stands and in whatever future shape it takes, by making sure that the upper House was
	in a position of dual control with this House on whether there was a fixed-term Parliament. We know from sentiments already expressed in that House—echoed many times in this House—that there is opposition to serious proposals on Lords reform, and in those circumstances I would certainly not indulge any extension of their powers or ability to trespass on the primacy of this House, which is exactly what the amendments would do.
	A number of weeks ago the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly lampooned the democratic credentials of the other Chamber, and yet now he wants to extend its control over the democratic proprieties of this Chamber and over whether there is certainty on when there will be a general election. I fully agree with him that those of us who believe in fixed-term Parliaments face a predicament with the Bill, because many of us believe that four years is the natural term for a Parliament. It was the natural term that this Parliament chose for the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and it was right that they were comfortable with it, but because Parliament is opting for five years, those assemblies will also have to shift to five years, which I do not believe is the natural rhythm for fixed terms.
	Nevertheless, it would be a bit much for someone like me to use the fact that I believe in four-year terms, in addition to believing in fixed-term Parliaments, to vote for rupturing the nature of the Bill. As someone who is proudly in the Irish Labour tradition, I have great regard for Jim Larkin, who once said that the purpose of politics was to keep narrowing the gap between what is and what ought to be. I believe in fixed-term Parliaments. Unfortunately, the only choice we now have is five-year terms. In future, I hope that other parties will be elected with a mandate to alter that fixed term to four years and that future Parliaments will do that, but I believe that we will reach that stage quicker by voting for fixed-term Parliaments now and amending the length of the term in future. If instead we get to the meaningless point of having a Bill that is a fixed-term Parliaments Bill only in name, rather like the two-hour dry cleaners that tells customers to come back next Tuesday because “two-hour dry cleaners” is just the name of the shop, that Bill will not fulfil its purpose in any real way.
	In relation to the amendments, there is a curious idea that both Chambers would decide on whether there would be a fixed term, but there is uncertainty on when those resolutions would be laid and who would lay them. The references to the Prime Minister in some of the amendments relate only to moving the date of an election back by up to two months, and I think that some people have misread that and think that it means that the resolution would have to come from the Prime Minister, but it would not. It seems that we would be left with a curious situation in which anyone could seek at any time to move such a resolution in either Chamber and create various difficulties that would simply add to the political mess and to the uncertainty on whether we have fixed terms.
	I also agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda in his criticism of the Bill’s provenance and the fact that it came about not to fix the term of Parliament, but to fix this Government. It was intended to create a fixed-term Government and a fix for this Parliament. For that reason it is wrong and it is bad. However, the amendments would have the effect of prescribing legislation that
	would have every Parliament begin with a Government using their majority to fix the term in a way that suited them. He said that any Government worth their salt would do that early on in the term, and presuming that an Opposition worth their salt would oppose it, we are left asking what the point would be and what such legislation would achieve, other than an unedifying procedure each time a recently elected Government appear to fix the terms on which they will govern which the Opposition resist. The whole idea of a fixed-term Parliament Bill is to ensure that there is no political speculation or contention on those issues. Looking at the nature of some of the other clauses and amendments, I do not believe that the Prime Minister is ceding as much power as some hon. Members have said.
	This is an unusual and uncomfortable experience for me, but I concur with the Government on these Lords amendments. Unfortunately, on this occasion I have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda while fully agreeing with his basic, continuing underlying criticism of some of the background to the Bill.

Richard Shepherd: I agree with a lot of the points made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I am conscious that this a Bill to fix a Parliament: that is the purpose behind it, plain and simple. The difficulty that the House of Lords faced and that we face in this House—it is the reason I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and otherwise—is the incoherence of the constitutional change that these amendments, to some extent, address.
	We are embarked on almost reckless constitutional change with no overall coherent view of what we want. I know what I want, and I rather suspect that the hon. Member for Foyle knows what he wants—a democratically elected, accountable House of Lords. That raises all sorts of subsidiary questions as to which has primacy and which does not. We have here a fix, without any view as to what the constitution is going to be, that has involved nothing other than the coalition partners bringing forward a Bill that contains certain propositions that do not relate. I appreciate that we have had all the debates about four years as opposed to five years and the rhythm of the process. We have had the AV referendum, which was again unrelated to how the constitution was going to look.
	That is why the Lords tabled these amendments. In a sense, they are not serious amendments—serious in the sense of how they prick this process and bring in a wider consideration of what the constitution should be, to whom is it accountable, and how we make these changes. Essentially, this fixed-term Parliament proposal is “back of the envelope”. Do we really want a five-year fixed term when we might have had only four years? I think that that was the position of the Labour party in its manifesto, and the position of the Liberal Democrats. The joyous thing about it is that we did not have a view, other than against, in our election manifesto.

Mark Harper: I want to pick my hon. Friend up on his point that this has been done on the back of a fag packet.

Richard Shepherd: I did not say that—I said an envelope.

Mark Harper: Yes, forgive me—it was the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) who said it was a fag packet. This Bill was introduced in July last year. It was
	fully debated in this House and in the other place, and it is now almost a year later. One cannot in any sense agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition that the parliamentary debate on and scrutiny of this Bill has not been thorough and well thought through.

Richard Shepherd: I am sorry, but my point was not as the Minister so kindly describes it. My point was that we are talking about a constitution. The problem for everyone, not only in this Chamber but out there too—the people—is what are the forms and proper norms by which we should conduct our business, electorally or otherwise.
	Now these piecemeal bits are coming forward whereby the Lords make the absurd proposition that it should have a role, as an unelected House, in determining when an election should be. That is clearly absurd, and to that extent I am sympathetic to the Government. However, I am very opposed to a five-year Parliament. There has been no testing on that. A parliamentary majority in this House will now determine that we have a new form of constitution that the hon. Member for Foyle is apparently happy about on the basis that it is only temporary and we might have a different, and therefore proper and better, version at a later stage. We have to deal with where we are here and now. We want a proper constitution, I would argue. I think that that is the position of the Labour party. I know that a good many Government Members also want a constitution that stands the test of time. No one from outside has really been invited into the supposed consultation.
	The Deputy Prime Minister has not even come to argue for his position. That truly trivialises the whole process. I have gone on about that before. However much I am thrilled with the presence of the Minister, it is absurd that those who make these propositions cannot come here and argue for them.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter, but he is drifting from the point of the Lords amendments. I know that he is setting the context, but that context is getting a little too wide. I would like him to narrow his speech back to the amendments.

Richard Shepherd: I am trying to use the amendments to explain and understand what the Lords are doing. I appreciate that I may be going too wide, and I am sorry if that is so, but that is the purpose behind what I am doing. It is in that context that I am going to vote for the Lords amendments. They are absurd; there is no question about that in my mind. It is absolutely absurd that the Lords, who are not democratically elected, should be setting out such amendments. The very writing of the amendments is extraordinary for a place that we are told is full of very intellectual and clever complacents. It is extraordinary that they should even be looking into this. However, I did not open this discussion; the coalition opened it, and it did not do so in a rational or reasonable way. I am trying to find an argument to support the amendment so that I can vote against what is an improper process. It is as simple as that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I want those on the Government Front Bench to understand my point. They are careering on. They held an AV referendum, but apropos of what—whether one was for it or agin it? I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that AV is not on the amendment paper.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is out of order. He is making points directly to his party. I would appreciate it if he kept to the amendments before us and did not range far and wide. There are other Members still to speak and other amendments still to cover. I know that he knows he is out of order because he keeps telling me that he is. I have been very generous to him, but it stops now. Please come back to the amendments.

Richard Shepherd: I am obliged for the courteous and pleasant way in which that was said. Mirror, mirror on the wall, I know that I am—[ Laughter. ]

George Howarth: I apologise for missing the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I wonder whether I may risk leading him astray. How does he think a fixed five-year term for this House stands alongside the proposals for a 15-year term for some peers in the other place?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) and I can both guess whether he should go down that line. I think the answer is that he should not. Can he please come back to the amendments?

Richard Shepherd: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was no way that I was going to rise to that fly. We will get back to the substance of the matter.
	These are ridiculous proposals from the House of Lords—on that I agree. To that extent I am with the body of the House, which, I hope, feels that this is almost an impertinence. That impertinence is qualified, of course, by the fact that the Lords are the second Chamber, and that as it stands—other than in matters of money, as I understand it—they have all the rights of a second Chamber to make or change legislation. They are wrong to table the amendment, but they are right in the spirit of it. I hope that it is in order to suggest such a thing. My proposition is that they are right in the spirit of it because it is the only way in which they can attack this matter.
	I hope that this cheerful Chamber will look askance at the Minister and his colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House, who are sitting on the Front Bench and trying to seduce us into thinking that there is some immaculate constitutional conception behind the Bill. There is not. It is the raw politics of “We want to be there for five years, in the hope that something turns up at the end of the fifth year”. That is what it is about, and we know it. I urge the House to vote for the Lords amendment, and damn them.

Charles Walker: Fixed-term Parliaments: constitutional vandalism.

William Cash: This was not in our manifesto. The people who voted for us certainly did not vote for fixed-term Parliaments.
	In 1940, as I have said, the Government won the vote in May, but the public would not countenance that Government remaining in power for another day. That was what got rid of Neville Chamberlain, and Leo Amery said:
	“In the name of God, go.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1150.]

Richard Shepherd: Quoting Cromwell.

William Cash: There was a similar example in the Cromwellian period. There are great events taking place in the world today, and the whole question of the sustainability of government ultimately depends on the continuing will of the people as a whole. The idea of fixed-term Parliaments is intrinsically wrong, because it defies the gravity of the views of the public at large. If the public were to turn against fixed-term Parliaments, under the Bill they could not succeed because fixed-term Parliaments would have been entrenched by statute, which would be upheld by the judiciary. That is fundamentally an attack on our sovereignty and the sovereignty of the people of this country. That is why I object so strongly to the whole idea of fixed-term Parliaments, whether of five years or four. It is unconstitutional, wrong and prevents the people from being able to demand a general election irrespective of the views of a Prime Minister or a coalition that is cobbled together despite the views expressed in the respective manifestos.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 312, Noes 243.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment 3 agreed to.

Mark Harper: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 4.

Dawn Primarolo: With this we may take Lords amendments 5 to 8.

Mark Harper: These amendments were moved in the other place and I want the House to agree to them, but I shall take a little time to explain why. One of them is particularly significant, because it replaces clause 2 with a completely new clause 2. Hon. Members will remember from our earlier debates that clause 2 is particularly significant because it contains all the provisions for early elections, in the context either of two thirds of the House choosing to hold one or of a vote of no confidence. It is therefore worth explaining to the House what we are proposing.
	Lords amendment 4 deals with the powers in the Bill for the Prime Minister to alter the date of an election in an emergency—[ Interruption. ]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am finding it rather difficult to hear him, because there are a lot of private
	conversations going on. I ask Members to listen to the Minister. The sooner we deal with this business, the sooner we can move on to the next.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Lords amendment 4 leaves out the “earlier or” provision. When we considered the Bill originally, it contained provisions for the Prime Minister to vary the date of an election, by moving it either forward or back by two months. In our debates in the Commons, many Members identified instances in which moving the date back would make sense, such as the outbreak of foot and mouth in 2001, but no one could think of any good reasons for moving an election to an earlier date. Similar points were made in the other place and amendments were tabled to remove the provision to move an election to an earlier date. We think that that is sensible. If there were a general consensus that we needed to hold an election at an earlier date, we could of course use the provisions in clause 2 and the House could vote to enable that to happen. The power to move an election forward therefore seems unnecessary, and Lords amendment 4 deals with that.
	Lords amendment 5 also deals with clause 1(5) of the Bill. The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that, when seeking to vary the date of an election under the power in clause 1(5), a Prime Minister should lay a statement before both Houses setting out the reasons for proposing the variance of the date. The Government accept that that recommendation would enhance the transparency of the exercise of that power, and the amendment would implement the Committee’s recommendation.
	Lords amendment 6 is the most significant in the group. It was supported by the Government in the other place, and it was tabled following consultation with two former Speakers of this House: the noble Baroness Boothroyd and the noble Lord Martin of Springburn. It also had support from Labour Back Benchers and from Cross Benchers. It is significant because it substitutes an alternative version of clause 2, setting out the exact forms of motions of confidence and no confidence for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment retains the original architecture of the clause, and the two triggers for an early general election—namely, that the House may vote for an early Dissolution with the support of two thirds of all Members, and that a vote of no confidence may ultimately trigger and early general election.
	We had much debate of an important topic at an earlier stage of the Bill and earlier today when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) suggested that what we were doing was changing the constitution. It is worth reminding the House that following a vote of no confidence in a Government, there is currently a dual convention—that the Prime Minister either resigns or calls a general election. That dual convention was set out in a recent book of Professor Vernon Bogdanor, who Members who have attended these debates will remember was my tutor. On many occasions, Professor Bogdanor has been quoted against me; he and I have not always agreed. In this particular case, I am pleased to be able to quote him in support of my arguments.
	In his book, Professor Bogdanor sets out the view that the no-confidence votes of January and October 1924 are examples of the dual convention, which is supported by the revised clause 2. He says:
	“In the past, a no confidence vote would lead to a dissolution only if there was no viable alternative government within Parliament. Otherwise, the Prime Minister would resign, and the alternative government would take office.”
	As we know, the vote of no confidence in the Baldwin Government of January 1924 led to the formation of the MacDonald Government without a fresh election taking place. In his book, Professor Bogdanor also cites what happened when the October 1924 no-confidence motion took place, stating:
	“George V, before granting what would be the third dissolution in two years, inquired, through his Private Secretary, of the two opposition leaders, Baldwin and Asquith, whether they were prepared to form an alternative government. Only after receiving a negative answer and only when it was clear that no alternative government was available did George V agree to a dissolution”.
	Those events show the importance of allowing time to seek alternatives before resolving to call an election. That was the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Aldridge-Brownhills were making in the debate on the earlier group of amendments. It explains why there was a 14-day period in the original clause 2 and why it is important that the same 14-day period remains in the newer clause 2.

William Cash: This 14-day period is simply a ruse, cobbled together by moving various Ministers around, in order simply to keep the existing Government in power. If a Government have a confidence motion and lose it by a majority of one, that is it—as happened with Lady Thatcher when a motion was passed by 311 to 310. That was the end of it; then a general election, leading to another Government, took place. That is how the system should function—the rest of it just cobbled together, as I say, for the sake of keeping a coalition moving under all circumstances. I am sure that the Prime Minister’s tutor, Vernon Bogdanor—also the Minister’s tutor—could have explained all that to him.

Dawn Primarolo: I think we get the point.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is simply not right. We have had this debate before. It is important because it relates to the revised clause 2, brought about by one of the Lords amendments, which refers to a 14-day period. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) supported it strongly when we debated it in Committee and on Report. Indeed, the Opposition supported our proposition when we voted against an amendment that I believe my hon. Friends had tabled.
	Two alternatives can take place. I know this 1924 example goes back a bit, but it is one of the scenarios that can happen. Of course, that did not happen in 1979, but that was because we were at the tail-end of a Parliament, so the general election took place. If a vote of confidence were lost early in a Parliament, the situation I described could occur.
	Another important issue came up here and in the other place when the rationale for clause 2 was debated. The 14-day period is not mandatory; it is the maximum
	period that can apply. If the Government had lost a vote of confidence and there were a general consensus that the country should move immediately to a general election, there would be nothing to stop the Government putting down a motion for an early Dissolution. A vote on it could happen and the general election could be triggered immediately. I am not sure that that argument came out strongly in the other place; that is why it is worth putting it on the record.
	We listened carefully to the concerns expressed in the other place about clause 2. We also conducted meetings with the two former Speakers, as I mentioned. We listened and made the amendment. Opposition Members will be pleased that the amendment has been made. The hon. Member for Rhondda said that as we were abolishing the Prime Minister’s right to dissolve Parliament, and placing that right in the hands of Parliament, it would be better to state in the Bill, in clear language, what constitutes a motion of no confidence, so that there can be no doubt.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister explain a couple of things? First, is there another example in legislation of a motion being laid down for Parliament to follow, or is it an innovation? Secondly, who will determine whether the motion has been passed in the correct form? Will it be a matter for the courts?

Mark Harper: Let me develop my argument, and I will cover the points raised by my hon. Friend. The concern in the other place about the original drafting of clause 2 was raised particularly by the two former Speakers, who felt that not having specific motions laid down, and requiring the Speaker to certify that votes of no confidence had been lost, would draw the Speaker into controversy. This House and the other place were happy that there was no issue about privilege and the courts trespassing into decisions of the House, but it was felt that there was a risk of the Speaker being drawn into controversy. The Government accepted the other place’s view that the language of the motion should be set out clearly.

Tom Watson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister and to you, but given the seriousness of the matter I wish to raise I must do so urgently. The Guardian newspaper has just issued a statement saying:
	“The prime minister’s account of why he failed to act on the information we passed his office in February 2010 is highly misleading.”
	Have you had notice of an urgent response from the Prime Minister so that he can put the matter right at the Dispatch Box?

Dawn Primarolo: Comments that are made outside the House are not the responsibility of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a question of privilege, I would advise him that he must write to the Speaker. It is not a matter for me now.

Mark Harper: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The new version of clause 2 set out in the amendment spells out the exact wording of motions of no confidence, motions of confidence, and motions for an early dissolution. Whether the conditions have been met would therefore be plain for everyone to see, and it would be clear from
	the
	Votes and Proceedings
	and the
	Journal
	, and the Speaker would not need to be drawn into certifying whether the motions had been passed. That was the reason why the amendment was supported by the former Speakers, the Opposition and the other place. The amendment delivers what we had originally intended—that the power to trigger an early dissolution should lie with this House—but adds clarity and does not risk drawing the Speaker into controversy.
	Amendments 7 and 8 are very important, especially for those Members who represent parts of the United Kingdom with devolved legislatures. When the Bill left this House, I told Members that we were in discussions with the parties in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly about how to deal with the coincidence of elections in 2015. I wrote to the Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly on 17 February, and proposed that if they passed a resolution with the support of at least two thirds of their Members, ensuring that there was consensus across the parties, we would agree to legislate to move the dates of the 2015 Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly general elections up to one year later. The Scottish Parliament passed a unanimous motion on 3 March confirming that it wished the UK Government to bring forward a provision to defer the 2015 election to 5 May 2016, and a similar motion was passed by the Welsh Assembly on 16 March.
	We have said that if the House accepts the amendments, in the longer term we will conduct a detailed assessment—this issue arose during the debate on the earlier group of amendments—of the implications of the two sets of elections coinciding at a later date. Once we have conducted that assessment, if we think that there is a case for changing the cycle of elections, we will carry out a public consultation in Scotland and Wales on whether the devolved legislatures should be subject to permanent five-year terms.

William Cash: Does the Minister not agree that, whether we adopted the original proposals in the Bill or the proposals of the former Speakers and others, the matter would be justiciable? The Speaker would indeed be drawn into controversy, but there would also be a risk of the whole question being adjudicated by the courts.

Mark Harper: We debated the issues of privilege, justiciability and whether the courts would seek to intervene in these matters at length in Committee and on Report, and they were also debated in the other place. I think that the general view was that the risk of intervention by the courts was very slight. It did not seem to concern Members of either House, although I accept that my hon. Friend still has concerns about it.

William Cash: rose—

Mark Harper: I will take one more intervention.

William Cash: The Clerk of the House, in his careful consideration of the issue, took the view, very strongly, that it would lead to justiciability. That is not just the view of one humble Back Bencher; it is also the view of the Clerk of the House, to whom fulsome tributes were paid yesterday for his wise advice.

Mark Harper: I recognise that. The Government set out our reasons for disagreeing with that view, and I believe that their case was accepted by Members of both Houses. We have already debated the matter at length, and I do not think that there is a feeling that we should resurrect that debate now.
	In Northern Ireland, there will be consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive and all the political parties, which will begin when the Northern Ireland Office has received reports from both the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission on the May 2011 polls, which involved three combined elections. The chief electoral officer’s report has just been received and is being examined by officials, and the report of the Electoral Commission is expected to be received shortly.
	Given that the amendments were accepted in the other place and there was a fair degree of consensus, I urge Members to agree with the Lords.

Chris Bryant: I broadly agree with what the Government have said. I would point out, however, that the Government, and the Minister himself, have developed a rather irritating habit of opposing measures at this end of the building and then agreeing with them at the other end. That is bad for the way in which we conduct our business in this House. It applies particularly to the replacement for clause 2, in Lords amendment 6. All the changes in these amendments were contained in amendments that we tabled at this end of the building—

Mark Harper: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the Minister, I am afraid.
	The Minister chose to oppose the amendments in this House, and then accept them in the other Chamber.

Mark Harper: rose—

Chris Bryant: I am not going to give way to the Minister. He has spoken plenty.
	This is the second occasion on which the Minister has done that today. This morning he tabled a written ministerial statement that basically consisted of an amendment that he voted against during our debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I wish he would stop doing it.
	All I will say to the Minister about the improved clause 2 is that part of it, the “two-thirds majority” provision, remains foolhardy. Requiring a special majority to secure something constitutes a complete change in the practices of the House. It is also completely unnecessary, because it is almost inconceivable that on any occasion on which the Government tabled a motion for an early general election, the Opposition would not agree with it. There would always be a two-thirds majority. Let me say to Liberal Democrat Members who may think that that would protect them if the Prime Minister opted for an early general election before the planned date for the next general election, that it will do no such thing.
	Lords amendment 4  agreed to.
	Lords amendments  5  to  8  agreed to.
	Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments;
	That Mr Mark Harper, Mr Philip Dunne, Chris Bryant, Jonathan Reynolds and Mr Mark Williams be members of the Committee;
	That Mr Mark Harper be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mr Goodwill.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the  Lords .

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous day. On the question relating to the Equality Act work on ships, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 233, so the Ayes have it. On the question relating to the Equality Act duties on public authorities, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 230, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division list s are  publishe d at the end of today’ s debates.]

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[19th Allotted Day—Half Day]

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Edward Miliband: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.
	The motion stands in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members across the House: the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the leader of the Scottish National party, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the leader of Plaid Cymru and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I thank them all for joining me in tabling this motion. I also thank those Conservative Members who have set out their support for the motion in advance of the debate.
	It is unusual, to put it mildly, for a motion in this House to succeed before the debate on it begins, but this is no ordinary motion, and this is no ordinary day. Make no mistake: the decision made by News Corporation was not the decision it wanted to make. It may have been announced before this debate, but it would not have happened without it. Above all, this is a victory for people: the good, decent people of Britain, outraged by the betrayal of trust by parts of our newspaper industry, who have spoken out up and down this country, and who have contacted Members across this House and told us of their concerns. The will of Parliament was clear, the will of the public was clear, and now Britain’s most powerful media owner has had to bend to that will.
	This debate is an opportunity to understand how we got here and where we go from here. I will speak briefly, to allow others to speak in what has been a curtailed debate. The terrible revelations of the last week have shaken us all. They have caused immense pain and heartache to bereaved families, as they learned that their most private moments were stolen from them to sell newspapers. As each day has gone by, I am sure all of us will have felt the same: surely it cannot get any worse than this. But it has: the phone of Milly Dowler, the victims of 7/7, the families of our war dead, and the personal details of our former Prime Minister. And we are told that there is worse to come. These revelations have uncovered a pattern of sustained criminality that is breathtaking, and they have called into question our faith in the police’s capacity fully to investigate wrongdoing.
	There are many things that we need to do to put these wrongs right. We have done one of them today. This was a time for the House of Commons to give voice to the views and feelings of the British public about the integrity of our media, which should be at the centre of our democracy. The principles at stake go to the heart of the country we believe in. They are about whether we allow power to be exercised without responsibility, about
	whether the responsibility we need goes right to the top of our society, and about the truth that no corporate interest should be able to write the law or be above the law.

William Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the point that I put to the Prime Minister earlier, which is that it would be incongruous to have terms of reference for this particular inquiry—most of the terms of reference having been announced—that exclude the sound and visual medium? We talk of “the media” generally, but most of the argument turns on the question of the word “press” and newspapers. Should the definition not be extended?

Edward Miliband: I am sure that that point will be considered, but what I say to the hon. Gentleman is that the abuses that we have seen are in our newspaper industry, and we do want this inquiry to get on and actually concentrate on where there have been abuses. It will, of course, examine cross-media ownership, and I think it is right for it to do so.
	This debate is also about the relationship between private power and the power of people, given voice by this Parliament. We need strong entrepreneurial businesses in this country, but we need them to show responsibility, and in these highly unusual circumstances it was right that Parliament intervened. The case was clear about why the stakes were so high in this bid—I will say something about that—about why the revelations of the recent past comprehensively undermine this bid, and about why the motion was necessary. I will deal with those points briefly.

Charlie Elphicke: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the “recent past”. As a new Member, I look and see that this goes back to 2003. We had deeply concerning reports from the Information Commissioner in 2006, so why was action not taken before 2010? Why was this not dealt with?

Edward Miliband: I say to the hon. Gentleman that all of us accept our share of responsibility for not having spoken out more on these issues. The question is: what is to be done now? Is this House going to take action? Are we going to work together to deal with these issues?
	Let me start by talking about why the stakes in this case were so high. News Corp was bidding for 100% control of BSkyB. This would have represented a major change for our public life in any circumstances, let alone those that we now face. It would have given News Corp unfettered control of one of the two largest broadcasters in Britain, as well as the 40% control of the newspaper market that it already owned. This was not some incidental change, but a major departure. The revelations of recent weeks went to the core of this bid. They suggest that people at News International have concealed and dissembled in an attempt to hide the truth about what had been done, including from this House of Commons.

Chuka Umunna: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the revelations and the differences in the information that has been provided to this House, it is right and proper for Rebekah Brooks,
	James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch to answer the call from the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to give evidence to this House next Tuesday?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this, because those people are key figures in the newspaper industry, and indeed the whole media industry in Britain, and they should not be above the Select Committee. It is absolutely right—I am sure that this view will be shared in all parts of this House—for them to come before the Select Committee.

Christopher Pincher: rose —

Edward Miliband: I am going to make progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Pincher: Was the right hon. Gentleman saying those things to Rupert Murdoch when he was eating his canapés three weeks ago?

Edward Miliband: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who is new to this House, that this is an opportunity for the House of Commons to speak with one voice on these issues. That is what we should do today.
	I was about to say that the issues we are discussing are about the integrity of people working at News International. The Chair of this House’s Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport says that he was misled, the head of the Press Complaints Commission says that she was lied to by News International, James Murdoch has admitted serious wrongdoing in the company, and there are now, of course, allegations that News International knew that phone hacking was widespread as long ago as 2007.

Toby Perkins: On the subject of the individuals to whom my right hon. Friend just referred, one thing that shocked many people as much as anything was the fact that on Sunday and Monday, when Rupert Murdoch arrived, he said that his No. 1 priority was Rebekah Brooks—not the Dowlers, not the families of the victims of 7/7, and not the families of dead servicemen. Rebekah Brooks was his No. 1 priority. Does that not show why he has a complete responsibility to come to this House and answer its questions?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Throughout this process Mr Murdoch has seemed to show no recognition of the scale of abuse of the trust of the people of this country, whom he claims daily in his newspapers to represent and whose voice he claims to understand. My hon. Friend is totally right.

Jim Sheridan: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the workers who will be losing their jobs in this whole debacle? While the Rebekahs of this world refuse to move on, those at the bottom end of the pay chain will have no choice about losing their jobs.

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is right: the cruel irony of the closing of the News of the World is that the one person who we know was responsible, in the sense that she was in charge when Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked, was the one person not to lose her job as a result of the decisions that were made.
	Let me make some progress. Even though we do not yet know what charges may be laid and against whom, it is apparent that there are serious questions to be answered about alleged criminal activity perpetrated by people in News International. Sky is a respected broadcaster under diverse ownership, and we did not want Sky taken over by a company under such a cloud.
	Let me explain why the motion was necessary; I see that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport is in his place. For months the Government have argued that they could rely on assurances given to them by an organisation about which there was mounting evidence of serious wrongdoing. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister told me there was no alternative to the Culture Secretary’s process, and that nothing could be done. Five days later the Culture Secretary changed direction, a decision I welcome, and referred the bid to the Competition Commission. That decision—hon. Members should understand that this is why the motion was necessary—would have ended up back on the Secretary of State’s desk before the end of the criminal process. He would then have needed to make a decision about the bid without all the relevant factors having been considered. That is why we tabled this motion.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the motion was necessary, and he will note that Scottish National party Members were signatories to the motion and support him in his endeavours. He is also right to stress that cross-party unity is important in all this, but will he accept and acknowledge that he perhaps got the tone wrong today at Prime Minister’s questions? The public do not want to see this argy-bargy between the two main parties. All parties in the House must work together on this issue.

Edward Miliband: I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s advice, but I do not necessarily agree with it on this occasion.
	We tabled this motion because the issue would have ended up back on the Secretary of State’s desk.

Alun Cairns: rose —

Edward Miliband: I am going to make some progress.
	Let me talk more generally about the issues we face. We want a free press. We want an independent press. We want the kind of journalism that does that profession proud and makes the rest of us think. The vast majority of journalists are decent people, with a vital role to play in our public life, but the best way to protect them, and to protect the integrity of our press, is to root out the kind of journalism that has left us all sickened. We all have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this scandal and ensure that something like that can never happen again. That is why I welcome the inquiry that has been announced today, and the comprehensive nature of that inquiry.

Sajid Javid: rose —

Edward Miliband: I am not going to give way.
	We have to address all the issues that we face for the future. On the relationship between the press and politicians, let me be clear. There is nothing wrong with politicians
	engaging with the media, and Members across all parts of the House will continue to do so. What matters is not whether those relationships exist but whether they stifle either the ability of the press to speak out against political leaders or the ability of political leaders to speak up.

Graham Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Miliband: I am not going to give way. [ Interruption. ] We have very little time for the debate and many hon. Members want to speak. I want to give them proper time to speak.
	As I was saying, this is about whether those relationships are conducted in a transparent way. That is why all Members of the House—I hope that this answers hon. Members’ questions—should be available to appear before Lord Leveson’s inquiry. On cross-media ownership, the inquiry will need to think long and hard about the dangers of the excessive concentration of power in too few hands. Most importantly, we must protect people from the culture that allowed all those events to happen.
	Lastly, there is a difficult issue for the House: the painful truth is that all of us have, for far too long, been in thrall to some sections of the media, including News International. For too long, when these things happened we just shrugged our shoulders and said, “That’s the way it is,”—but no longer. The events of the past seven days have opened all our eyes and given us the chance to say, “It doesn’t have to be like this.”
	I want, before I finish, to pay tribute to the people who made this possible, and to Back Benchers across the House for their courage in speaking out. I pay tribute particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) for their tireless and brave work on these issues. I pay tribute to Members on the Government side, such as the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who spoke out about BSkyB in last week’s emergency debate, and to the Select Committees and their Chairs on both sides of the House. I also want to pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for the seriousness with which you have taken Parliament’s role on this issue.
	This is a victory for Parliament. This House has been criticised in recent years for being timid, irrelevant and out of touch. Today Parliament has shown an ability to speak out without fear or favour, to speak to our great traditions, and to show that we can hold power to account and that nobody is above the law. To paraphrase the late Lord Denning, be ye ever so high, the people are above you. This House—all Members and all parties—have given voice to the people and have said to Rupert Murdoch, “Abandon your bid.” The country wanted this: it wanted its voice to be heard, and today it has been heard.

George Young: May I begin—[Hon. Members: “Where’s Cameron?”] May I begin by welcoming the tone of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, which I very much hope will set the tone of our debate this evening? In response to the sedentary interventions from the Opposition, may I say that it is entirely appropriate that the Leader of the House should speak during this
	debate given that today represents a victory for Parliament and for those whom we represent. As events have overtaken the motion and as this is a short debate I propose, like the Leader of the Opposition, to make a brief contribution.
	Despite the fact that the police investigation is under way and that the public inquiry announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is soon to be up and running, we are still hearing shocking allegations by the day. We are hearing allegations that personal details of members of the royal family were handed over to newspapers for profit, that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), whom I welcome this evening, had his details blagged by another News International title and that victims of terrorism also had their phones hacked into and their privacy invaded. As both the nature of the malpractice and the scope of the newspapers involved widens, it is right that the police continue to follow their inquiries and the evidence wherever it takes them.
	It was simply unrealistic to expect the public and politicians to separate all this from News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB. That is why both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were right when they said earlier this week that News Corporation should withdraw its bid. Any hon. Member who was running the company right now, with all its problems, difficulties and the mess it is in would want to get their house in order first, before thinking about the next corporate move. That is why it was entirely right for News Corporation to withdraw its bid today. The whole House will welcome that decision.
	I want to pick up a point that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made towards the end of his remarks. Today has proved that those commentators who have in the past written this place off were completely wrong. We have seen the tenacity of Back Benchers. The hon. Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) have been in the forefront of a relentless campaign for the truth, and they have revealed that the House is able not only to reflect the public mood, but to be a champion of its causes.
	I also pay tribute to the forensic scrutiny of Select Committees—those chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). They have vindicated the decision to make the Select Committees more independent of the Executive. The Chamber, which some had argued was losing its relevance and power, has in fact been leading the public debate over the past fortnight, with the Standing Order 24 debate, statements and Select Committee hearings all being televised live.
	No one can say today, as they did two years ago, that Parliament is irrelevant. Yes, we have learned the hard way how easy it is to lose the trust of our constituents, but having proved itself an effective champion of the people on this issue, the House has the opportunity not only to regain the initiative, but to restore public confidence in Parliament at the same time.

Several hon. Members: rose —

George Young: I give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. As the saga unfolds and acquires a greater international component, what powers will the inquiry have to ensure that the international aspects of the story can be properly investigated so that the House is seen to have teeth and to be able to clean up the mess here, but to set an international standard?

George Young: The prime focus of the inquiry that we have announced should be getting things right in this country, but I have no doubt that as we make progress there will be interest on an international scale in the way we take matters forward.
	Given the news that broke this afternoon, it is right that the House can now focus its attention on the wider concerns that the public feel—allegations of widespread law-breaking by parts of the press, alleged corruption on the part of the police, and the years of inaction from politicians.

Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unprecedented for a motion to be sponsored by six Opposition party leaders in the House of Commons and supported by Members on the Government Benches too? The Prime Minister said that he wishes there to be a cross-party approach. Bearing that in mind, does the right hon. Gentleman regret the fact that discussions that took place last night excluded the parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed that question in the statement this afternoon. We have published draft terms of reference. We are consulting the devolved Administrations. They will have an opportunity to make an impact on the terms of reference.
	There is a proper, large-scale and well-resourced police investigation which has all the powers it needs to bring those responsible to justice.

Jamie Reed: Will the Leader of the House give way?

George Young: For one final moment.

Jamie Reed: There is no doubt that the depths of the scandal have yet to be fully revealed. Many people, among them Carl Bernstein, have compared it to Watergate. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that comparison?

George Young: It makes sense to allow the inquiry to take place before we pronounce a verdict on whether there is comparability with what happened in America, but the way that we have responded was the right way to respond, rather than to indulge in the sort of cover-up that happened over the Atlantic.
	The House is clear that justice should be done. The Government are doing everything we can to make that happen. All Members will remember the scandal over parliamentary expenses that engulfed the House two years ago, almost to the day. Illegality and gross misconduct by a few, cover-ups and a lack of transparency, and the failure of self-regulation were a toxic mix that led to a
	dramatic change in how Parliament was perceived by the public, with the reputation of the majority tarnished by the actions of a minority.
	I see parallels between what happened to us and what is now happening to another important pillar of any democracy, namely a free press. While there are parallels, there are also lessons. As with expenses, the right approach to the current situation is to reach political agreement on the right way forward, to ensure much greater transparency and to move away from self-regulation to independent regulation without impeding the media’s ability to fulfil its democratic role.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

George Young: I will make progress, as many Members wish to speak. The police investigation, the inquiry that the Prime Minister launched today and the ongoing inquiries being carried out by Select Committees must now be allowed to get on with their crucial work.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.

William Cash: We have been told that there are published terms of reference and it would be helpful to have access to them. We do not know where they are and have not been told what they are.

Mr Speaker: That is a very important point, but it suffers from the disadvantage of not being a point of order.

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement this afternoon that the draft terms of reference would be placed in the Library.
	This country has a rich tradition of a lively and free press, which must continue. We have been fortunate to have a strong and robust police force, which now must prove itself beyond reproach. Finally, although some outside this country may disagree, we are fortunate to have a House of Commons that is independent of Government, and the fact that Parliament has proved itself effective in resolving the issue is a tribute to how the House has addressed the matter.

Gordon Brown: It is a bit like the old days for me, with the Government on the run, the Opposition in pursuit and a headline in The Sun saying, “Brown wrong”, another example of my very close relationship with News International. It is like the old days, but with one exception: if I had not come to the House when I was Prime Minister, in a debate in which the Prime Minister has been implicated, I hesitate to think what hon. Members would have said—[ Interruption. ]
	Much has already happened today outside the House, with the announcements by BSkyB and the subsequent announcement by Ofcom only a few minutes ago that it is now examining whether News Corporation is a fit and proper person or organisation for the 38% of BSkyB that it still holds. When there have been great
	occasions and great questions of moral concern, it has been this House that has spoken for Britain, and over the next few months this House must show that it can rise to the challenge. With the exception of decisions on peace and war, there is no matter of greater importance than the basic liberties of our citizens. Each generation has to reconcile for its times the freedom of the individual with the freedom of the press and balance two great rights, the right of the public to information and the right of the individual to privacy.

Graham Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: I want to set out the facts for the House and will be happy take any interventions after.
	In nearly 30 years as a Member of this House, in opposition and in government, I have never sought to propose or impose any restrictions on the freedom of the press. At all times I have defended their right to expose any wrongdoing wherever it is found and to speak truth to power however uncomfortable it is, and indeed was at times for me. Although I will today make proposals for reform and comment on each point that the Prime Minister made earlier in the House, it is my judgment that we should reform but never undermine something so fundamental to our ordered liberty as our twin commitments to the freedom of the individual and to a free press.
	I rise to speak not about myself, but for those who cannot defend themselves: the grieving families of our brave war dead; the courageous survivors of 7/7; the many other dignified, but now outraged, victims of crime and; most recently, and perhaps worst of all, the victims of the violation of the rights of a missing and murdered child. Many, many wholly innocent men, women and children who, at their darkest hour, at their most vulnerable moment in their lives, with no one and nowhere to turn to, found their properly private lives, their private losses, their private sorrows treated as the public property of News International—their private, innermost feelings and their private tears bought and sold by News International for commercial gain.
	Amassed against these guiltless victims and against a succession of other victims of crime whose names I know about and have seen, and have yet to be made public, was the systematic use of base and unlawful methods—new crimes with new names: blagging, hacking, Trojans to break into computers and not just phones. It was not the misconduct of a few rogues or a few freelancers but, I have to say, lawbreaking often on an industrial scale, at its worst dependent on links with the British criminal underworld.

Graham Stuart: rose —

Gordon Brown: I will set out my case and then I will answer questions.
	This is the only way—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. Mr Stuart, I am going to say it to you once and once only: you are far too excitable. Be quiet and calm down—[ Interruption. ] Order. If you cannot—do not shake your head at me—then leave the Chamber.

Gordon Brown: This is the only way to describe the behaviour of those at News International who took the freedom of the press as a licence for abuse, who cynically manipulated our support of that vital freedom as their justification, and who then callously used the defence of a free press as the banner under which they marched in step, as I say, with members of the criminal underworld. This nexus—this criminal-media nexus—was claiming to be on the side of the law-abiding citizen but was in fact standing side by side with criminals against our citizens. Others have said that in its behaviour towards those without a voice of their own, News International descended from the gutter to the sewers. The tragedy is that it let the rats out of the sewers.
	When I became Prime Minister in 2007, I, with everyone else, had no knowledge of this systematic criminality within News International. I also did what any holder of the great office I held would do. With our armed forces at war in two theatres, and with my own sense of the need for a renewed national purpose, I wanted to unite the country, not divide it; to bring people on board, not to pick fights with them; and to strive to create the broadest coalition of churches and others across our nation in support of our nation’s best interests, and not wilfully to set out to make an enemy of anyone. I therefore believe it was right, in what is often called the Prime Minister’s honeymoon, however brief it turned out to be for me—and for my successor—to seek to build bridges with members of the public and the press and to strive to construct the widest coalition of understanding for our policies and purposes. I would be surprised if I am unique in politics in hoping for the best of relationships with our media.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Gordon Brown: Let me say, Mr Speaker, that I am about to set out some facts for this House, and I hope that once I have done so I will be able to give way to Members.
	In the month that I started at No. 10, there were already issues of state involving News International—a decision that the Government had to make on a Competition Commission inquiry into the recently acquired stake that brought its ownership of ITV up to 16.8%. It was for the Government to decide on any referral to the competition authority, and the Government approached this with no bias against BSkyB. However, after examining in some detail BSkyB’s activities, the Government, on the advice of the relevant authorities, found a case to answer and announced the strongest remedy possible—a referral to the competition authority, which went on to rule that BSkyB’s share purchase in ITV was not in the public interest. So far from siding with the News International interest, the Government stood up for the public interest by making the referral. While we correctly gave it time to sell its shares, its shares had to be sold.
	Next was the proposed Ofcom review into the onward sale of BSkyB sporting and other programmes, and the claims of its competitors that it had priced BT, Virgin and other cable companies out of the market. The public interest was in my view served by due investigation. We did not support the News International interest, but stood up for what in our view was the public interest. The Ofcom recommendation, which News International still opposes today, demanded that there be fair competition.
	It is no secret that the 2009 McTaggart lecture given by Mr James Murdoch, which included his cold assertion that profit not standards was what mattered in the media, underpinned an ever more aggressive News International and BSkyB agenda under his and Mrs Brooks’ leadership that was brutal in its simplicity. Their aim was to cut the BBC licence fee, to force BBC online to charge for its content, for the BBC to sell off its commercial activities, to open up more national sporting events to bids from BSkyB and move them away from the BBC, to open up the cable and satellite infrastructure market, and to reduce the power of their regulator, Ofcom. I rejected those policies.

Martin Horwood: rose—

Nadhim Zahawi: rose—

Gordon Brown: I will give way after I have set out my evidence.
	Those policies were clearly in News International’s interests, but were plainly not in the British people’s interests.
	The truth is there in Government records for everyone to see. I am happy to volunteer to come before any inquiry, because nothing was given: there were no private deals, no tacit understandings, no behind-the-scenes arrangements and no post-dated promises. I doubt whether anyone in this House will be surprised to hear that the relationship between News International and the Labour Administration that I led was, in all its years from start to finish, neither cosy nor comfortable.
	I think that if people reflected on events as early as the summer of 2007, with the portrayal of me in The Sun as the betrayer of Britain, they would see them as somewhat absurd proof of an over-close and over-friendly relationship. Headlines such as “Brown killed my son”, which made me out to be the murderer of soldiers who were actually killed by our enemy, the Taliban, could hardly be a reflection of a deep warmth from News International towards me. The front-page portrayal of me as "Dr Evil" the day after the generally accepted success of the G20 was hardly confirmation of The Sun’s friendship and support as the world battled with the threat of a great depression.
	It has been said that the relationship between News International and the Government of the day changed only because in 2009 News International suddenly decided to oppose Labour formally. I say that the relationship with News International was always difficult because Labour had opposed its self-interested agenda.
	I have compiled for my own benefit a note of all the big policy matters affecting the media that arose in my time as Prime Minister. That note also demonstrates in detail the strange coincidence of how News International and the then Conservative Opposition came to share almost exactly the same media policy. It was so close that it was often expressed in almost exactly the same words. On the future of the licence fee, on BBC online, on the right of the public to see free of charge the maximum possible number of national sporting events, on the future of the BBC’s commercial arm, and on the integrity of Ofcom, we stood up for what we believed to be the public interest, but that was made difficult when the Opposition invariably reclassified the public interest as the News International interest. It is for the commission
	of inquiry to examine not just the promises of the then Opposition, but the many early decisions of this Government on these matters.
	During the last year of our Government, information became public to suggest that the hacking of phones, and indeed of computers, went far beyond one rogue reporter and one rogue newspaper. In February 2010, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported that the number of victims was more than the handful that had been claimed. It said it was inconceivable that no one else at News International other than those convicted was in the know. News International, it said, was guilty of “deliberate obfuscation”. But already, in August 2009, Assistant Commissioner Yates of Scotland Yard had taken only eight hours—less time, I may say, than he spent dining with the people he should have been investigating—to reject pre-emptively a further police inquiry. Even the proposal that an outside police force take over the Scotland Yard inquiry had been rejected.
	Having seen the Select Committee report, I immediately asked the head of the civil service to agree that we set up a judicial inquiry. Far from the so-called cosy relationship alleged with News International, which would have meant doing nothing, my answer to what appeared to be News International’s abuse of press freedom was a full judge-led inquiry to meet growing public concern.
	Let me summarise the formal advice contained in a memorandum to me rejecting such an inquiry: that, while there were some new facts and there was a media culture permissive of unlawful activities and deliberate obfuscation by News International, the Select Committee did not believe that the practices were still continuing, and thus they did not meet the test of urgent public concern; that time had elapsed and evidence may have been destroyed; that the News of the World and individuals had already been punished by their resignations and jail terms; that there was no evidence of systemic failure in the police, and anyway all their decisions had been checked with the Crown Prosecution Service; and that targeting the News of the World could be deemed to be politically motivated, because it was too close to the general election and would inevitably raise questions over the motivation and urgency of an inquiry.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Gordon Brown: I think that for the benefit of the future debates on the matter and the inquiry, this information is relevant.
	The memorandum stated that if an appeal was made against a judicial inquiry, such a challenge might succeed, and that there was not only no case for a judicial-led inquiry, but not a strong case for either a non-judicial inquiry or even a reference to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, or even for asking the police to reopen their inquiry.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask whether there is any time limit in this debate, and—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. If there were a time limit it would be announced;
	when there is, it will be. That is the end of the matter. It is a totally bogus point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Gordon Brown: I notice that the hon. Gentleman asks for a time limit; perhaps what he ought to do is listen to the facts.
	If we do not act now on what we now know, and if we do not act forcefully and with clarity, friends around the world who admire our liberties will ask what kind of country we—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
	Earlier today the Prime Minister said it; the Leader of the Opposition has said it; the Leader of the House has said it—a new tone, a new mood. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) will be quiet. There will be interventions when the Member who has the floor takes them, and not before. Members will observe basic courtesies and listen quietly and with respect to speakers. That is the end of it. Mr Stuart, if you are not prepared to do so, leave the Chamber. We can manage without you.

Gordon Brown: If we do not act now as a House of Commons, knowing what we now know, and act forcefully and with clarity, friends around the world who admire our liberties as a country will now ask what kind of country we have become. A crime has been committed against innocent members of the public; a complaint has been made to the police and no satisfaction has been given. Even when the police have had someone’s name as a likely victim, they were neither telling them nor taking action. No action from the head of the first police inquiry, Andy Hayman, whose next job just happened to be at News International; no action from his successor, who had overall responsibility for two inquiries—Mulcaire and Abelard, or what is called Southern Investigations—each with vast but unexamined archives exposing criminality on a huge scale. Inspector Yates has redefined for us the meaning of an inquiry. He not only failed to ask any of the right questions but, as became clear yesterday, he failed even to ask any of the basic questions.
	I deeply regret my inability to do then what I wanted to do—to overturn the advice of all the authorities and set up a judicial inquiry. I can say for the record that, as I left office, I talked to the leader of the Liberal party and warned him that a Coulson problem would emerge, and I did so directly, and not through an intermediary who might not remember to pass on the message. At the same time, I handed him, in person, our proposal for a commission into the media, and in summer last year, I wrote to the head of the civil service to point out that the previous advice against the judicial inquiry had clearly since been overtaken by the new evidence.
	I am afraid that the House must examine more recent, more damning and more alarming evidence. Because of what happened to my children, whose privacy at all times I have tried to protect, I have been sent, I have been offered, and I have had thrust upon me a great deal of evidence that is relevant to this debate, which is now for the police to examine. It is right for the House to know that the damage done in the past 10 years to innocent lives was avoidable. As early as the winter of
	2002, senior police officers at Scotland Yard met the now chief executive of News International and informed her of serious malpractice on the part of her newspaper staff and criminals undertaking surveillance on their behalf. The new investigation will no doubt uncover why no action was taken within News International and what lay behind the subsequent promotion of that junior editor concerned.
	In that context, and again, because of what happened to my family, I have been made aware of an additional and previously unexamined stream of orders by one of the editors at News International, Mr Alex Marunchak, to hack and to intrude—a man who was subsequently promoted to be a full editor of a regional edition of the News of the World. As we now know, a cover-up can be more damning than the original crime, and the decision of the News International chairman to pay, without reference to his board, some victims sums of around £500,000, may now be seen as the buying of silence. Given his statements to this House, that must now be the subject of full parliamentary, as well as police, scrutiny.
	The freedom of the press in this country was built through the countless acts of fearless people who had done no wrong, and yet had to make huge sacrifices. Today, the freedom of the press can best be assured by full disclosure and reparation by those who know that they have done wrong. First, for the future, the press media itself should immediately press for a new Press Complaints Commission. We need one that is proactive, not passive; one that is less about protecting the press from the public, and more about properly processing the complaints of the public against the press; and one that is wholly independent, so that it can differentiate, and be seen to differentiate, between the abuse of power as a result of self-interest and what we really need, which is the pursuit of truth in the public interest.
	We need to put an end to the violation of rights, but also to ensure the righting of wrongs. Secondly, therefore, News International papers, and every other responsible paper, should in future be obliged to publish—not on page 35 or 27, but on page 1—apologies to all individuals whose rights have been infringed. Perhaps in future we will know the naming and shaming of criminals inside the media by the name of one of the saddest victims, as happened with Sarah’s law. That would require News International to practise what it has so self-righteously preached to other people.
	Thirdly, we must do all in our power to prevent the subversion of our basic rights again. We must therefore be ready to discuss limits to the undue concentration of ownership in the media as a whole. I must say to the Prime Minister, in response to the statement he made earlier today, that I believe that he will have to widen the remit of the commission of inquiry, so that we are sure that it will examine not just the police and general ethics, but all the evidence of the abuse of surveillance techniques and technologies, as a result of which we saw the undermining of our civil liberties.
	In the long and winding evolution of our rights and freedoms, the people of this country have always been at risk from huge concentrations of power. Traditionally, they have seen the freedom of the press as a force for their freedom, but when our country’s biggest media organisation has itself become an unchallengeable concentration of power, as it was until today; when it is
	has held in contempt not only basic standards of legality, but basic standards of decency, too; when it has replaced freedom with licence; when it has wielded power without ever being elected to do so; and when it has regarded itself not only as above the law, but as above the elected institutions of our country, all concerned people in this House should be able to see that what should be our greatest defence against the abuse of power had itself become an intolerable abuser of power.
	History will also show that a press will not long remain free in any country unless it is also responsible. If the irresponsibility that has characterised News International is not to define the public view of the media as a whole and if continued irresponsibility is not to force Parliament to take ever stronger measures to protect the public from the press, we will need far more than the closure of a newspaper one week and the withdrawal of a bid the next.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: I give way.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as are many other Government Members. Before he finishes with this high moral tone, will he tell us something about Messrs Whelan and McBride?

Gordon Brown: I find it strange that when I am giving to the House new evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the Conservative party, instead of listening, want to shout down the speaker. On reflection, when we are talking about people who have been abused as a result of the infringement of their liberties, the Conservative party will think it better to hear the evidence before jumping to conclusions.

Graham Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: Of course I will give way.

Graham Stuart: I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he was not aware of systematic abuses of the law by News International. May I put it to him that from near the beginning of the previous Government, News International executives, in conjunction with Members of the then Government, conspired to smear Lord Ashcroft and they illegally—[Interruption.] Labour Members think that there is one law for them and another law for others. They illegally blagged bank accounts in order to try to undermine Her Majesty’s Opposition. He knew about it then. Why was nothing done?

Gordon Brown: I am surprised that this debate, which started with our desire to protect the lives of innocent children, should end up with the Conservative party more interested in defending Lord Ashcroft. I would have thought that, if the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) knew that there were so many abuses at News International at the time, he would have advised the then Leader of the Opposition not to employ Mr Andy Coulson.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is nice to see him in the Chamber, Mr Speaker. I have listened carefully to him—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Nadhim Zahawi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman as he has so eloquently outlined for us his bravery in standing up to Murdoch. Does he regret that the previous Government held a slumber party for Elisabeth Murdoch and Rebekah Wade, as she was known then, at Chequers?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman started by implying that I have not been in the House much. I have come to a debate on the future of the media on an issue in which the Prime Minister of this country is implicated and has questions to answer. [Hon. Members: “Where is he?] I repeat to the House that had I, as Prime Minister, not attended a debate on a problem that was partly my responsibility, Conservative Members would have been up in arms.

Alun Cairns: It was said earlier that if these inquiries are to succeed, the tone needs to be right. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he has contributed to that tone in the way he has provided his evidence today?

Gordon Brown: Yes, because what I have sought to do is give the facts about the infringement of civil liberties, about the relationships between News International and the Government and about those instances where News International and the public interest diverge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask the leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister to do exactly the same on every single issue that I have raised, because it is going to be a matter of concern for the whole country, not just this month, but in many months to come: what are the precise relationships on individual policy issues between the Government of the day and one of the biggest corporations of the country? I make no apologies for setting out the record of our Government in our relationships with News International, and I hope that Members on the other side of the House will ask their leader to set out what happened in the relationship between his party and News International.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Gordon Brown: I will finally take one more question, because Mr Speaker will never call me again.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a parent myself, I share the disgust at the invasion of his privacy, and I agree with him that the police have serious questions to answer. Nevertheless, criminality was disclosed in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report in 2003 and by the Information Commissioner in 2006. As a new Member, I ask him: why was nothing done?

Gordon Brown: I have set out the record of my desire to have a judicial inquiry. It was opposed by the police, opposed by the Home Office and opposed by the civil service, and it was not supported by the Select Committee of the day. However, if the hon. Gentleman felt that it
	was right in 2003 that there should have been an inquiry into the media, why at no point, even until last week, did the Conservative party ever support an inquiry into the media in this country?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Gordon Brown: I am so tempted to take further interventions, but I would lose my chance ever to speak again, so I must bring my remarks to a conclusion.
	Ofcom—this is incredibly significant—has this afternoon announced that it is now going to apply the “fit and proper” test to the remaining holdings of News International in BSkyB. This is a further useful step, but we must now have three things: a sustained and rigorous process of investigation and disclosure; a fairer distribution of media power in our country which will eventually restore the public faith in a media that are fully and genuinely free; and, as a result of what we now know, robust measures, akin to those that I have described this afternoon, to ensure that the lethal combination of illegality, collusion and cover-up that we now know has prevailed for a whole decade can never happen again.

John Whittingdale: It is not often, I expect, that I shall sign a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. On this particular occasion I thought it right to do so. I commend the Leader of the Opposition on his approach, which is that we must tackle these appalling matters on a cross-party basis. I have always tried to do that in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I am proud to chair, and I think that we have succeeded. I will merely say that I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition’s predecessor did not choose the same approach this afternoon.
	I believe that the atmosphere at present has become so poisoned by the stream of appalling revelations that it would have been quite wrong for the News Corporation bid to acquire the whole of BSkyB to go ahead. We still do not know—we still have not even begun to know—the full extent of what has been going on in the newsroom at the News of the World, in the higher levels of News Corporation or, possibly, outside that, in other organisations, but clearly there were already question marks about the “fit and proper” test for News Corporation’s bid. The important thing is that we should obtain answers to questions very rapidly. There is an ongoing police inquiry, which needs to be concluded as fast as possible; there is the judicial inquiry that the Prime Minister has rightly set, which I fear will take much longer; and then there is my Select Committee, which has asked Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks to appear before it next Tuesday. We have not yet received a response. The Select Committee will meet tomorrow morning, and if we have not received a reply by then, we might well wish to return to the House to ask it to use the powers available to it to ensure that witnesses attend.

Penny Mordaunt: There is an assumption that, once the News of the World ceases to trade, the victims of phone hacking will still have legal redress and that there will be a compensation fund for them. I doubt that that is the case, however. Is that something that the Committee could look at?

John Whittingdale: It might be more appropriate for the judicial inquiry to look at that matter, as it essentially involves a point of law, but I entirely share my hon. Friend’s concern that the victims should have access to proper compensation when wrong has clearly been done to them.
	The Committee decided that we wanted to hear from Rebekah Brooks because she is the chief executive of News International, and from James Murdoch because he was until recently the chairman of News International in this country. We have also asked Rupert Murdoch to appear, because he is essentially synonymous with News Corporation. He has considerable achievements to his name. He pioneered the use of new technology in the newspaper industry, which transformed it, and he took the brave decision to launch BSkyB, which changed the whole face of British television. It is the case, however, that he will now be forever tarred with the revelations that have come out over the past few months about what has happened in his papers.

Gerald Kaufman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was his predecessor as Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. As he also knows, we asked Rebekah Brooks—then Rebekah Wade—to give evidence to the Committee, with Andy Coulson, at that time. She admitted with clarity that she had been involved in paying money to the police. Andy Coulson said that that had been done only within the law, which was an unbelievable lie because it is impossible for a newspaper to pay money to the police within the law. When the hon. Gentleman has Rebekah Brooks and the other people from News International before him, I advise him to take a long spoon with him, because of the way in which they will try to lie and cheat their way out of the predicament that they are in.

Mr Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

John Whittingdale: I recall vividly the evidence given by Rebekah Brooks to the Committee when the right hon. Gentleman was its Chairman. It included matters that he rightly says might turn out to be criminal, and I am certain that the judicial inquiry will want to examine them. I have no doubt that some of my colleagues on the Select Committee, who are extremely robust on these matters, might well wish to ask questions about those matters as well, should they have the chance to do so.
	In regard to the takeover of BSkyB—which is, after all, the matter that we are supposed to be debating this afternoon—it has always been the case that there are more stringent tests for the acquisition of a media company in this country. That is right; it is a reflection of the power of the media that they should be subject to greater tests. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who has been utterly scrupulous in his handling of this matter. I believe that he has acted on the basis of independent advice at every stage, and it is difficult to find fault with the way in which he has conducted himself.

Kevin Brennan: Speaking as a former competition Minister, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it was open to the Secretary of State to make a choice to stick with his original conclusion that
	he was minded to refer the matter to the Competition Commission? Had he done that, we could have been saved a lot of trouble.

John Whittingdale: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acted on the basis of the advice that he received from Ofcom. The original advice was that he should refer the bid, but Ofcom then came back and said that the undertakings being given by News Corporation were sufficient and that there was no longer a need to do so. At every stage, he has acted on the advice of the independent regulator.
	I want to say a few words about BSkyB, which has been an extraordinarily successful company. It has pioneered choice in television and introduced the personal video recorder, high-definition television and 3D television. It has recently passed the 10 million home mark. It has been incredibly successful. It is right that its ownership should be subject to very close scrutiny. I would also like to commend it on its most recent announcement of £600 million of annual investment in UK content, which will do a tremendous amount of good.
	The test that my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary put up to be examined was that of plurality. That is about Sky News. It is worth saying that throughout this saga, Sky News has displayed the same objectivity and independence in its coverage of matters concerning its parent company—or the company that sought to become its parent company—as it has in other matters.

William Cash: We heard earlier about the published terms of reference set out by the Prime Minister. We got them from the Library and they refer to a
	“judge-led inquiry into phone hacking”—
	but it is confined to the press. Would my hon. Friend, having been consulted and with his Committee meeting tomorrow, agree to look into these terms of reference? Does he agree that sound and visual media journalism has to be included to make the inquiry fully comprehensive?

John Whittingdale: I have not yet heard any suggestion that similar activities have been undertaken by television or radio companies, but, should that be uncovered, I have no doubt that the judge would request a broadening of the terms of reference to include it. The important thing is that the judge should follow the evidence wherever it leads. As I understand it, that is the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave.
	Some have expressed the concern that Sky News might go the way of Fox News. Fox News is very successful, but I do not believe that it would ever succeed in this country. We have an entirely different climate. Nevertheless, that was the key issue under consideration when we examined plurality. However, the revelations over the course of the last two weeks have raised a much more serious issue—the “fit and proper” test and whether or not News Corporation meets it, not just in respect of its 100% ownership, but now in respect of its 39% ownership of BSkyB. That is something that Ofcom will want to consider, but I believe that Ofcom is correct in saying that it should act on the basis of evidence rather than allegation. These matters need to be pursued to the very end. We need to discover the truth, and if it turns out that very senior executives in News Corporation are involved in, or had
	knowledge of, what has been going on, that will raise questions about the fit and proper test. I have no doubt that Ofcom will pursue them.
	It might take years for us to find the full extent of what has been happening and to get to the truth, but if that is what it takes, that is what we must do. This episode must never be allowed to recur. We need to find out the full extent of it. We will try to begin to uncover some of the truth on Tuesday, if those people are willing to appear before us, but this judicial inquiry and the police inquiry must find the truth.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the level of interest expressed, from now on there will be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

Ben Bradshaw: I wish to concentrate briefly on an issue that, in the understandable outrage over the phone-hacking scandal, has been largely overlooked, at least until it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister, earlier this afternoon. That issue is the extent to which the current Government’s policy has been influenced by News Corp interests.
	The sorry saga of the BSkyB takeover bid has already been well documented, but other Government policies could also have been written in Wapping. The first was the announcement last summer that the Government would not implement the recommendations of Labour’s Davies report into listed sporting events. Sport is one of the biggest money spinners for Sky and there remains real public concern about the lack of sport, particularly of test cricket, on free-to-view television. When the Leader of the House responds, I would like him to tell us when the Government intend to implement Davies’ modest and sensible proposals in full.
	The second example is when the Government abandoned Labour’s proposals for regional news consortia, funded by a protected element of the licence fee, in order to secure the future of high-quality, impartial regional news and news in the nations on ITV. James Murdoch hated this idea; I know because he told me so in one of the many rows we had. One of the first decisions the current Secretary of State took when he came into office was to scrap these regional news consortia, in spite of the fact that they were already well down the road to implementation and had the full support of the industry and the public.
	The third area, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has already referred, is the Government’s assault on the BBC through the biggest cut in funding in its history, leaving the corporation having to cut its programme funding by a massive 25%.
	We should not be surprised by any of this. All that one needs to do is read James Murdoch’s chilling speech at the Edinburgh TV festival in 2009, in which he called for the BBC to be “cut down to size” and for Ofcom to be “neutered or scrapped”. What did the then Leader of the Opposition do in response? He added Ofcom to his list of quangos for the chop.
	Returning briefly to the now dead News Corporation-BSkyB takeover, we know from the Business Secretary’s unofficial spokesman Lord Oakeshott that the Business Secretary would have referred the bid to the Competition Commission. Why did the Culture Secretary change the Business Secretary’s policy and bend over backwards to help News Corporation avoid a long and costly inquiry? His approach in this regard has been extraordinary.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Ben Bradshaw: He has repeatedly tried to hide behind the argument that he has a quasi-judicial role. Had he exercised that, he would have followed Ofcom’s original recommendation and referred the bid in full to the Competition Commission. Is it not the case that there has always been a plurality problem? We thought there was a plurality problem; the Business Secretary thought there was a plurality problem; Ofcom thought there was a plurality problem; every serious media analyst in the country thought there was a plurality problem. The only people who did not think there was a plurality problem were News Corporation and the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Ben Bradshaw: To dispel any suspicion—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No, I will not give way. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to give way, it is up to him.

Ben Bradshaw: I give way to the Secretary of State.

Jeremy Hunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it was on the basis of Ofcom’s independent advice that the media merger should go ahead that I made that recommendation to the House? On Monday morning, I wrote back to Ofcom to ask whether it stood by that advice, as a result of which the bid ended up being referred to the Competition Commission.

Ben Bradshaw: We will discover that when all the papers are published, which is my next point. However, what happened came only after the Secretary of State intervened on behalf of News International in a negotiation with Ofcom.
	To dispel any suspicion in the House and among the British people that the Government acted under pressure from News Corporation, the Government must now disclose the details of all meetings, discussions and communications involving Ministers, officials and representatives of News Corporation, or their representatives. That must include details of the now infamous back-door visit to Downing street straight after the election, and the Prime Minister’s Christmas dinner with James Murdoch and Brooks in Oxfordshire.
	May I finish with some friendly advice to the Government? The information will come out. It is far better for the Government to put it voluntarily into the public domain now than to have it prised out by freedom of information requests or by the forthcoming judicial inquiry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has said, it is rarely the initial mistake, incompetence or bad judgment that is fatal, but the cover-up.

Don Foster: The Leader of the Opposition was right to begin his remarks by saying that what has happened today is a victory for the British people. It was the British people who were horrified by the Milly Dowler affair, and by the hacking of the communications of the families of victims of 7/7 and of Afghanistan. The Leader of the Opposition was right to say that the British public forced the political parties to unite in the motion before us, and to put pressure on Rupert Murdoch in relation to the takeover.
	I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House on the tone of their speeches and for seeking to avoid partisan remarks. As the whole House knows, for the past 30 years there have been significant failures by Governments of both major parties to stand up to the media in this country. What has happened today as Murdoch has backed down, probably only temporarily, is a victory for the British people. However, the Prime Minister was right to say that it is not the end of the matter: we must continue with the thorough police investigation to root out wrongdoing and bring those who have committed crimes to justice.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, although my intervention will give him injury time. I want to pray in aid a point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). The Information Commissioner’s analysis shows that we should worry more about the Mail newspapers than about Murdoch. Ten years ago, when my mother was recovering from a stroke, a reporter from The Mail on Sunday went into her house without knocking on the door to try to extract information from me.

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The report to which he refers was published in 2006, when his party was in power. It alleged that 305 journalists were acting illegally, and no action was taken.
	We could become involved in party political stuff. I could point out that it is amazing that the former Prime Minister, who gave us that list of things that he did as Prime Minister, failed to make any mention of what his party did in government when he was merely the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	Critical actions are necessary. The Press Complaints Commission has been drinking in the last chance saloon for far too long. It is ridiculous that papers such as the Daily Express and the Daily Star can walk away from it, and that only people who have been directly affected by a judgment can get it to investigate. That must be changed.
	It is also ludicrous that there is so little clarity about how the “fit and proper person” test should be conducted. I asked the Secretary of State about that on Monday, and I asked the Prime Minister about it today. It is true that the British public wanted to know not just whether Murdoch’s was a fit and proper organisation to take over yet more shares, but it was not made clear whether the test could take place on the basis of its current 39% shareholding. I am delighted that Ofcom is now investigating that, but the law is still confused about the issue.
	The law is also confused about plurality—the issue of who should own our media to ensure that it contains multiple voices. Surely by now the House recognises that, in the modern era of communication, it is not just news and current affairs that determine how we think about ourselves and the world. That can also be done by drama, comedy and many other means.

Duncan Hames: I suggested to the Secretary of State in March that there was a case for wider application of automatic triggers for referral to the Competition Commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider that?

Don Foster: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is so much that needs to be sorted out.
	Rupert Murdoch has dropped his bid for the time being, but who knows when he will return via another bid? The British public will never forgive us if we take our eye off the ball. The inquiries must go ahead, and the revisions to law must go ahead, so that we can have a decent press in this country in which journalists—the majority—who carry out the fearless inquiries that we want, but do it legally, are allowed to continue to do so.
	It is a disgrace that when Rupert Murdoch closed the News of the World , a large number of journalists who had done absolutely nothing wrong lost their jobs, while the person in charge, Rebekah Brooks, kept hers. When Rupert Murdoch arrived in this country, she was the person whom he described as the key issue for him. That is the most disgraceful thing that has happened in the last week.

Sammy Wilson: My party has no hesitation in backing the motion. The debate has now moved on. There will be inquiries. There will be an investigation of the wrongdoing, and there will be an investigation of the police and their activities. However, one thing must be dealt with if we are not to see a repeat of these events and a further undermining of our democracy. I refer to the whole issue of the concentration of press power in the hands of one organisation. It does not matter whether it is concentrated in the hands of News International, Rupert Murdoch or anyone else, but as long as that concentration is there, there will always be a tendency for those of us who are involved in the political field to want to be on the right side of the people who hold the power.

Karl McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the debate is about more than a media mogul owning newspaper and television companies? Does it not also flag up the issue of dual share structures, in which the owners of one class of share, such as the class A non-voting shareholders of News International, have no voting rights?

Sammy Wilson: We must address everything that leads to that concentration of power. If that is not dealt with, there will always be a tendency to rush after and try to please those who have such influence.
	We have only to consider the accusations that have flown back and forth across this House today. Why did the current Prime Minister, when he was at a low ebb in opposition, and under pressure from the Government
	of the day, hire a dodgy character even though he had been warned? Was that because of the influence that that might give and the doors that that person would open? Was it because of some of the other benefits that would come from the appointment?
	Why did the current Prime Minister’s predecessor bottle this, despite the fact that he knew about wrongdoings? He told us today that he knew about them. Was it because the Home Office said he could not do anything? Was it because the police said there was no evidence? Or was it because he knew there was a certain limit beyond which he could not go? After all, he was the Prime Minister, so he could have made the decision. I do not wish to be partisan; I just think that we must look at what has happened under both the current Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers. How did they behave? How did parties behave when in government and seeking the support of News International? As long as we have that concentration of power, there will always be the danger that our democracy might be undermined by those to whom we have to pander because we need the headline.
	That is bad for the business concerned as well, because of what it then believes. I have no doubt that News International believed it could get away with what it did get away with, because, being in such a powerful position, it felt that politicians might pull their punches and that the police might not fully investigate matters. As it felt that it could get away with some of those activities, it did them; then it pushed the limits and went further and further. If we do not deal with the concentration of power, I believe that this might happen again, regardless of what comes out of the inquiry, who goes to jail, and what sanctions are put in place.

Pete Wishart: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are some big critical issues for the devolved Administrations in terms of the inquiry. Does he agree that it is imperative that whoever leads the inquiry, and however they do their business, they consult fully and engage comprehensively with the devolved Administrations?

Sammy Wilson: I hope that will be the case, and I am disappointed that there was not more consultation with the smaller parties representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the terms of the inquiry, but I hope that will be remedied in the future.
	The third reason why I believe we must deal with the concentration of power is that there will always be public mistrust of the news industry if it is felt that one group is so large that it can influence the law and politicians, and get away with things. That is not good for the press and the newspaper industry either, or for those who get on the wrong side of the door. We have seen how it has swung against the Labour party. At one stage that party was the darling of News International—but no longer. At one stage the Conservative party suffered as a result of being on the wrong side of the door. I know about that, too, from my experience in Northern Ireland, when the Conservative party joined with the Ulster Unionist party before the last election. News International had taken little interest in Northern Ireland politics and politicians, but suddenly there seemed to be an undue interest, in our party in particular. Indeed, a
	number of our party members were targeted—not that News International ever found any wrongdoing, but there was innuendo, and it was sufficient to sow doubts in the mind of the electorate.
	That is why politicians will always try to get on the right side of the door. If we are on the wrong side, we know what will happen. We will not get the headlines, and instead we will get the investigations and the innuendo. For that reason, the concentration of power must be dealt with, even though the inquiry is not going to deal with it.

Graham Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman reflect on the headline that we see at every election, “It’s the Sun wot won it”?

Sammy Wilson: Whether that is true or not—sometimes I think that perhaps we do not give enough credit to the electorate—politicians are aware that mass media can influence elections, so they try to keep on the right side. I hope that the inquiries will be made to look into the issue of concentration.

Phillip Lee: May I begin by emphasising my personal disgust at the revelations that have come out over recent days, particularly those with regard to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)? I really cannot imagine what it must be like to see one’s child’s health records in the public domain.
	I wish to step back from what we have been discussing so far, as I think that it is important for Members of this House to do that in times of storm. We should not be in the middle of it; we should be stepping back. I wish instead to discuss media plurality in reality, as it is now in this world. The way in which individuals search for news, and indeed share news, is changing and has changed. As for the idea that the ownership of one news channel watched by a relatively small number of people should concern us greatly, I suggest that the ownership of search engines and social media should concern us more.
	Let me set out a few facts from the United States. According to recent information from the Pew Research Center, Google is the biggest single driver of traffic to news sites in the United States. Facebook has 500 million users worldwide, and of increasing importance to Facebook is the fact that it shares news; it is a way for people to communicate with each other and pass on stories. People do not turn on Sky News to get stories; they get them from friends on Facebook.
	In this country more than 90% of online searches go through Google, with the figure for Europe and the wider world being more than 95%. Why am I so interested in this? I have a company on my patch called Foundem, which has three employees and has interested the European competition commission. That vertical search engine company was launched in 2006, and was allegedly suppressed by Google. It is a vertical search engine for washing machines and motorcycle helmets—but news too is a commodity. If Google can suppress a company like that, it can suppress a news organisation; it can point people in the direction of their news. People may obsess about trying to make Mr Murdoch the bogeyman of the present, but this is past; this is not the way things will be in the future. It is all going to be about where
	people get their news from, and that will not necessarily be the
	News of the World
	. By concentrating on one man at the moment, people are missing the point. That is the central thrust of my argument. News has changed, and the way in which people communicate has changed.

Madeleine Moon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the revulsion against News International has arisen because it became a virtual state within the state, running to its own set of rules, being above the law and feeling that it did not have to follow even the rules of moral decency? Does he agree that one of the challenges that we face with organisations such as Facebook and Google is ensuring that they too cannot be allowed to become above the law, and above the laws of moral decency in what they publish, and in what people post?

Phillip Lee: Of course I agree with that: it is a statement of the obvious, is it not? I am greatly concerned that we do have a media state in this country. I saw an interview with somebody on the BBC recently—a former deputy editor of the News of the World—who stated as much. However, my point is that the media are changing. I do not need to comment on someone’s “fit and proper” right to own a newspaper or a news organisation; that is for others to do. My point is that at the moment we do not have control over where a lot of people are seeking to get their news from, and we have absolutely no idea whether what they are getting is the truth or not, because there is no check. That is why I agree with the hon. Lady.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such serious and valid points. Does he recognise that the regulation of new media is much more difficult than even the regulation of the press, which makes it much more unpredictable and unmanageable?

Phillip Lee: Yes, I do. That is the problem: we need cross-border understanding. As for getting some sense of an international legal framework, good luck with that. It is very difficult, but that is the challenge we face.
	I do not want to take up all the time I have available, because I know that others want to speak. If hon. Members will indulge me, I shall quote a few lines of poetry. I heard this the other day from a modern poet:
	“The slow one now,
	Will later be fast,
	As the present now,
	Will later be past.”
	We should remember those words, because that is where we are now. There is a danger that we will obsess about the ownership of BSkyB whoever it is owned by, whether that is Mr Murdoch or someone else, following the announcement this afternoon. We might obsess about one component of the media, yet its importance will have passed. It will no longer be important to us as politicians, who clearly need to get our message over, but need to do so by having a professional relationship with the person who controls the presentation of that message to the public.
	In conclusion, we should remember that the world is changing very quickly. In the future, Governments of any colour, red or blue, abroad or at home, will need to be very cautious about their relationships with businesses
	such as Google, Facebook and Twitter. They are the media giants of the future, and they might be just as capable of employing people who have committed the crimes alleged in recent days as News International has been in the past. We should bear that in mind.

Chris Bryant: Some chilling words: “This one is my priority,” spoken by Rupert Murdoch about Rebekah Brooks; “There is far worse to come,” spoken by Rebekah Brooks about the revelations; “News International was deliberately thwarting a police investigation,” spoken by Commander Peter Clarke, who was in charge in the investigation and who has never said that in public until now; “I am 99% certain that my phone was hacked,” spoken by Assistant Commissioner Yates, who is in charge of counter-terrorism in this country; and “Have you ever paid police officers?” “Yes,” spoken by not just Rebekah Brooks but Andy Coulson.
	Some disturbing facts: News International bullied those who opposed or were critics of the BSkyB empire; the policeman investigating News International went on to work for the company not years but weeks after he had stopped working for the Metropolitan police; Parliament has been lied to time and time again by a series of different people; material was deleted at News International and sometimes squirreled away and kept against a rainy day when a police officer might come knocking on the door to try to incriminate somebody else lower down the chain in the organisation; some people were ditched and thrown overboard, as we have seen throughout this year; and, as the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) said earlier, one of the most disgusting things that has happened in the past two weeks is that the people slaving away in the boiler room had to carry the can for those who were at the helm. That does not show that that is a decent company with which to do business.
	Executive and non-executive directors at News Corporation completely failed in their fiduciary duties to ensure that criminality was not going on at their company and that the organisation was co-operating completely with the police. That involves Mr Aznar, Peter Barnes, Kenneth Cowley, Lachlan Murdoch, Thomas Perkins, John Thornton and Stanley Shuman, who should all be considering their position, too. I believe that this is proof that News Corporation is not a fit and proper body to hold its present holding in BSkyB, let alone any increased holding.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who has been tenacious over the years on this matter. He said that BSkyB has done much that is good and I am sure all our constituents would agree. They watch lots of Sky television and enjoy their Sky Plus. The company has lots of technological innovation that only a robust entrepreneur could to bring to British society, but it has also often been profoundly anti-competitive. I believe that the bundling of channels so as to increase the profit and make it impossible for others to participate in the market is anti-competitive. I believe that the way in which the application programming interface—the operating system—has been used has been anti-competitive and that Sky has deliberately set about selling set-top boxes elsewhere, outside areas where they have proper rights. If one visits a flat in
	Spain where a British person lives, one finds that they mysteriously manage to have a Sky box there even though it is registered to a house in the United Kingdom.
	Sky has a virtual monopoly over many areas of our lives, with 67% of residential pay-TV subscriptions and 80% of pay-TV revenues—with an average spend of £492 a year.

Greg Mulholland: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s tenacity and courage over the course of this matter. He has been a credit to Parliament in the way he has pursued this. He is quite right that News International must be brought to justice, but does he agree that we must address the concentration of ownership of the media? If we do not do that, the idea that we have a free press and free media is simply false.

Chris Bryant: I completely agree that we failed to address the fact that we have allowed one man to have far too much power in his hands, including four newspapers and all the rights I have been talking about.
	It is not just newspapers and broadcasting that have been subject to anti-competitive practices; it is also advertising. Sky spends £127 million on advertising—double what Virgin is able to—in any one year. The fact that it has such a big presence in the market makes it difficult for others to enter. It is anti-entrepreneurial to allow one person to have so much power, which is why no other country would allow it.
	I suspect that the people of the country have been way ahead of we politicians on all of this. In the 10 years that I have been an MP, many have come to my constituency surgeries and demanded changes to the system. We have all failed in our duty for far too long, perhaps because we were frightened. If the Murdochs fail to attend the Select Committee next week, I believe that the people of this country will conclude that the Murdochs are waving goodbye to Britain—and maybe that would not be a bad thing.

George Eustice: I strongly support the motion and I think that Sky has been absolutely right to withdraw its bid. It gives the police time to complete their investigation and, at the end of all that, gives Ofcom time to assess whether BSkyB is fit and proper to have a broadcast licence.
	I want to focus on a couple of areas, particularly to do with media regulation and how it could be improved. This change is long overdue. There is nothing new about these problems with the media. In 2006, a very comprehensive report from the Information Commissioner uncovered widespread problems here with a trade in people’s personal information. A whole series of recommendations was made about toughening up the role of the Press Complaints Commission and changing the laws in some areas, but it was seen as too easy to ignore those recommendations and turn a blind eye to the report. That is a real indictment of the Opposition. Alastair Campbell spent the best part of a decade warning them that there was a problem with the media and that something needed to be done and it is wrong that that opportunity was not taken up.

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend raises the PCC, which has not been mentioned much in the debate. Does he agree that it has proven, over time, to be something of a toothless tiger? One of the big lessons from this sorry affair is that we need to look at having a situation in which, rather than one newspaper deciding on the rights and wrongs of another, we have a different way forward.

George Eustice: I absolutely agree, and I shall come to those issues in a moment. First, I want to say that the introduction of new regulation of the media should not be feared by journalism. Indeed, it could raise the status of journalism and restore confidence in the profession. If clear boundaries are enforced, that will strengthen the position of journalists if they are told to do a hatchet job on some story by their newspaper’s proprietor or editor, perhaps because they are angry that a story was given to a rival paper. In such a situation, a journalist will be in a stronger position to resist and say, “No, that would be in breach of the code and would put us in a difficult position.” At present the boundaries are not clear enough. That undermines journalism and makes it harder for journalists to face down demands from proprietors and editors alike.
	It is also wrong for people to be concerned that a code would muzzle free speech. We have a tough broadcasting code to which all our broadcasters are subject, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned. Sky News is a very good news organisation. It does a good job. There is nothing in that broadcasting code that hinders free debate. We have robust debates in a range of formats, but papers are culturally different so it would be wrong to apply the entire broadcasting code to the print media. In particular, it would be wrong to expect impartiality of the print press.
	I shall touch on some of the aspects where we could improve the PCC or its replacement. There is not much wrong with the PCC code. The problem is that it has not been enforced with the rigour that we should require. In particular, the public interest defence, which is a kind of get out of jail card in so many areas, has been used and abused over the years, and used in all sorts of cases where there was no such public interest to justify the pursuit of certain means.
	Another problem is a lack of sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) said, broadcasters who breach their code face serious and heavy fines of £250,000 and sometimes more. The press does not have such a culture. If there is no real consequence for newspapers that breach the code, they will not be too bothered about abiding by it. Finally, I wish to pick up on something that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) said, and which I have been pushing for some time. If a newspaper wilfully prints a story that it knows to be untrue, it is right and proportionate that it should give the same space to its correction as it gave to the original story. Sensible changes like that could help a great deal.
	We all accept that the relationship between politicians and the media has got far too cosy over the years.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of the regulators on ownership is important? Although we in the House are
	right to express our views and anger about BSkyB and other issues, it should not be for politicians to make arbitrary decisions about who owns what, or that may be seen as too much political interference in a free press.

George Eustice: I entirely agree. We need to keep the issues separate, but as I said earlier, given all that is going on, it is right—

Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Eustice: I will not give way. I am sorry. I have given way enough and we are nearly out of time.
	We need to change the culture in which, over decades, the press barons have been led to believe that they can decide policy. It is no wonder, if they have had so many politicians coming to court them and seek their support. We need to try and get over that culture, and change things for the better. By weakening the press barons, we could strengthen journalism. It is important that we approach the debate in the right tone. We should be clear that we are not trying to stifle free speech, but that our objective is to strengthen journalism itself.

Nigel Evans: I call Steve Rotheram to speak until 6.44 pm.

Steve Rotheram: There are not many in Liverpool who will shed any tears for the catastrophic downfall of News International and Rupert Murdoch or their belated withdrawal of the deal to purchase BSkyB, although they will sympathise with those innocent of any wrongdoing who have subsequently lost or may lose their jobs.
	Twenty-two years ago the people of Merseyside decided to take on The Sun after it lied about the Hillsborough disaster. Although for a short time we received support in other cities, people gradually forgot the smear that had been perpetrated against us, while others preferred to believe what they had read, but nobody forgot on Merseyside. In 1999 the fight for justice for the 96 victims began and it is as strong today—

Nigel Evans: Order. Winding-up speeches to begin.

Ivan Lewis: Today the House has come together to speak with one voice, but we must also show some humility. In reality, there were only two or three hon. Members willing to pursue these issues over a long period. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) deserve our respect for their courage and relentless pursuit of the public interest. That is ultimately why we are elected to this place. We also heard a remarkable speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who not only provided sensational new information, but reminded us that this issue goes to the heart of the character of our country, or the good society, as he would say.
	In truth, the public do not ask much of their public institutions or private corporations. They have a right to expect a free and responsible press, clean and competent police, politicians who speak up for the public interest
	without fear or favour and businesses that obey the law and have decent ethical standards. On all those counts they have reason today to ask, “Who can we trust?” In the aftermath of the global banking crisis and the MPs’ expenses crisis, there is an urgent need to answer that question. Today is our chance to make a start, but it is also a day for Mr Murdoch to reflect on the consequences of his company, which had no limits and a “story at all costs” culture that not only fuelled criminality, but offended every standard of decency. It is also a day for other newspapers to reflect on their level of involvement in illegal activities, because it is wrong that the reputation of the vast majority of journalists and editors is being undermined by the actions of a few. Remaining silent is no longer an option.
	Given the outstanding serious allegations of criminality, the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone and of the phones of relatives of 7/7 victims and brave soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public would never have understood this deal being allowed to go ahead. From the beginning we have called for it to be referred to the Competition Commission for a full and independent inquiry, but I was told time and again by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport that that was not necessary and, in recent days, not possible.

Jeremy Hunt: On that basis, does the hon. Gentleman think that I was wrong to follow the procedures laid down in the Enterprise Act 2002 and—the Act does not require this—to ask for and publish independent advice at every stage?

Ivan Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman was wrong not to refer the matter to the Competition Commission and to rely on the good faith of a company that has been involved in this kind of activity.
	What lessons have been learnt from this sorry episode? In matters of media ownership and mergers, politicians should never again fulfil a quasi-judicial role. Market share and power, and not simply plurality, must now be at the heart of the debate we are to have on the future. We welcome the fact that this will be part of an independent inquiry. A fit and proper person test should be applicable in all cases of serious failure of corporate governance. A new independent press regulatory system must reflect the new digital age and the rights of ordinary citizens more than the politician and the celebrity.
	The Secretary of State must reflect on the judgments he has made, and I say to Government Members that the BBC may need reform, but its strength is absolutely central to the vitality of our democracy. We all know that the Conservative party has wanted to undermine the BBC at every opportunity. The Prime Minister described cuts to it as delicious, which demonstrates the kind of broadcasting environment they wanted to see in this country before these revelations changed forever the course of how we make these decisions. Today is an historic day for this country. This House has asserted the public interest and finally made it clear, according to the values of my party, that no corporate interest can be allowed to write the law or break it.

David Heath: This has been a very important day both for the country and for
	Parliament. It is important because, for the first time, we have had a very clear indication that the police investigations that were carried out so inadequately before are now going ahead and yielding results.
	It is important because we have heard of the establishment of a proper judicial inquiry under a very capable judge, Lord Justice Leveson, that will deal not only with the inadequacies of the previous inquiry and not only with the unacceptable practices in the press and the media. I am wholly unconvinced that those practices were confined to News International, and I am glad that the inquiry will work on a wider spectrum. The inquiry will look at the relationship between some media and some politicians and allow for proper investigation of the perhaps too cosy relationship that has sometimes existed. The decision by the Prime Minister to provide for proper disclosure of meetings between senior politicians and the media—I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will agree to that for his own party—seems to be a great step forward.
	The other area that the inquiry will deal with—this is absolutely crucial, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been talking about it for some time—is the potential systemic suborning of police officers by some elements of the media. We must put an end to that.

Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that the inquiry deals in great depth not only with the points that he has made but with the abuses of many other newspapers in illegally procuring personal information?

David Heath: I absolutely agree with that intervention.
	I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this is a good day for Parliament. We should avoid being self-congratulatory—we have hardly been a model of good practice over the years—but today, and over recent days, we have been able to demonstrate that we can express the views of the public.
	It is also a good day because News International’s bid for BSkyB has been withdrawn, as it should have been withdrawn. There was increasing revulsion at the revelations of what were called offences against common decency. I think people would have found it very difficult to understand why the Murdoch empire was carrying on trying to expand its boundaries when there were such clear deficiencies within.

Simon Hughes: Is it also the responsibility of the inquiry to look at the warnings that have been given over 17 years about the accretion of powers by the Murdoch empire, the failure to act on those warnings during those years, and the failure to act on the very clear recommendations to which the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) referred, which suggested in 2006 that 31 newspapers and more than 300 journalists had been guilty of illegality. Nothing was done about that in the following five years.

David Heath: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that. It is absolutely essential that we look at not only the actions but the inactions of very many people during the progress of this scandal. It is extraordinary that so little was done for so long.

Frank Dobson: rose —

David Heath: This is the last intervention that I will take.

Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the rot set in when, against the advice of the late Michael Foot, Mrs Thatcher set the precedent of refusing to refer the purchase of The Times and The Sunday Times to the then Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the grounds that 40% ownership of newspapers was too much in one pair of hands?

David Heath: We have had abundant evidence since then of what has or has not been done in relationships with the media.
	The best contributions to the debate have been the most sober and non-partisan, and I am grateful to colleagues who entered into the debate in that context. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), whose Committee has done such a lot of good work. I am grateful, as I have indicated, to the hon. Member for Rhondda for what he has said not just today but on previous occasions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), to the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for his very brief contribution. They talked not only about the criminal behaviour that has been uncovered over recent days and weeks, but about the concentration of power and ownership and the effect that that has on the media in this country, and about the adequacy of the Press Complaints Commission, which we clearly need to look at. The hon. Member for Bracknell warned that new media and technologies will bring new challenges that we have to address.
	There were contributions from members of the previous Government. I think that most of what the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said had more to do with the competition authorities and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport than with the contents of this debate, but he took this opportunity to raise those issues. There was a long contribution from the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). May I say that it is genuinely a pleasure to have him contributing to our debates in this House, and he should do so more often? Everybody understands his personal issues concerning the completely inappropriate release of information about his family, and everybody has sympathy for him over that. Everybody will take careful notice of the serious evidence that he produced to the House, which I hope will be properly considered by the inquiry. I hope that he will give full evidence to the inquiry, as he indicated he would in his contribution, as I hope will other members of the previous Government who have a story to tell. I would criticise him because there was a self-exculpatory tone in much of what he said, and I think that that may have grated on some. Nevertheless, it was an important contribution.
	The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) did not quite rise to the occasion. He wanted to take a partisan view, in considerable contrast to the leader of his party. He wanted to resile from the body of law that the Government of whom he was a member put in place. He wanted to say that issues that cannot be clearly linked in law should be linked in law. I remind him of what he said on 10 June, because it is relevant to his contribution:
	“The serious admissions of culpability by News International aren’t relevant to the News Corp-BSkyB media plurality issue”.
	Now he is saying that those admissions are intrinsic to it. He cannot have it both ways.
	What we have seen is a systemic failure across the institutions of public life to get to grips with a cancer of wrongdoing. There were abundant signs over the years: admissions of criminal behaviour, Select Committee reports that went unheeded, and clear examples of big media organisations wielding too much power, political and commercial. I hope that the inquiries that are being put in place today will deal with that issue. I hope that that chapter is drawing to a close. I believe that we have a unique window of opportunity to get it right. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) says that we have barely started yet. He is absolutely right. We have barely started getting to grips with this cancer of wrongdoing, but we will get to grips with it. We now have an inquiry that will set us on the right path and a Government determined to act. That is as it should be. I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a lighter note, is there a way in which you can draw to the attention of the House the significant victory by the House of Commons rowing team, by four lengths, over the House of Lords?

Nigel Evans: I could not possibly think of a way of making it more widely known than you just have, Mr Foster. Thank you very much for lightening the proceedings.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation (committees)

Ordered ,
	That the draft Modifications to the Standard Conditions of Electricity Supply Licences, which were laid before this House on 9 June, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Sittings of the House (19 July)

Ordered ,
	That, on Tuesday 19 July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Motion made,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 21 June, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Financial Services Bill presented to both Houses on 16 June (Cm 8083).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 1 December 2011.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr David Laws, Mr Peter Lilley, David Mowat, Mr George Mudie and Mr David Ruffley be members of the Committee.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Hon. Members: Object.

Delegated Legislation

Nigel Evans: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 12 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Taxes

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Liberia) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (South Africa) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
	That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Aruba) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
	That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Curaçao, Sint Maarten and BES Islands) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Mauritius) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed  to .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed  to .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Social Security

That the draft Disclosure of State Pension Credit Information (Warm Home Discount) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Consular Protection

That this House takes note of European Union Document COM(2011) 149, relating to consular protection for EU citizens in third countries; recalls that such Communications are not legally binding; underlines that the competence for consular protection remains with Member States; and agrees with the Government’s approach to the EU’s consular work.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Nigel Evans: We now move on to petitions. The first is from Teresa Pearce. She is not available, so we move on to Mr Nicholas Brown.

Abolition of Cheques

Nick Brown: I should like to present a petition on behalf of my constituent Dr Helen Gilthorpe, declaring that the petitioners
	are profoundly concerned by the proposed abolition of cheques.
	It is accompanied by another petition in similar terms signed by some 60 of my constituents, many resident at the Abbeyfield care home in my constituency.
	I know that the arguments for the retention of cheques are well understood by the House. The cheque is still the second largest means of payment by value in this country, and cheques are a convenient way of paying bills and making donations to charity. Some 46% of cheque use is by those aged 55 and over, and the campaign to keep the cheque is supported by groups ranging from Age UK to the Federation of Small Businesses. I understand that the Payments Council has announced the suspension of its proposal to abolish cheques, and I hope that it will take this petition as further support for that decision.
	Following is the full text of the  petition :
	[ The Petition of Dr H. Gilthorpe and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners are profoundly concerned by the abolition of cheques.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Payments Council to reverse the decision to abolish cheques and maintain them as a method of payment for the foreseeable future .
	And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000939]

EU Referendum

Kate Hoey: I have great pleasure in bringing to the House the first of what I think will be many, many thousand petitions coming over the next few months on the importance of and need for a referendum on this country’s membership of the European Union. As many Members know, there is a growing
	campaign on that across the country, and I am very pleased that I am able to bring along some signatures that were collected in a very short space of time at the weekend in my constituency and in Lambeth. I believe that we will be seeing a lot more of these petitions over the coming months, as people in this country finally wake up and start campaigning to get a referendum, which is greatly needed, on whether we should stay in or leave the European Union.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of constituents from London and others,
	Sheweth that the Petitioners believe that the Government should allow the British people a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to allow the British people a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000940]

Protection of Y Morfa (Prestatyn)

Chris Ruane: As a Welshman, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that y morfa is Welsh for marsh. Marshes are not ideal places to build, but nevertheless, some developers want to build on Y Morfa in Prestatyn, and the good people of Prestatyn are opposed to that.
	The petition states:
	The petition of residents of the Vale of Clwyd,
	Declares that the petitioners support Chris Ruane MP’s call for Y Morfa, Prestatyn, Denbighshire to be protected from development in perpetuity; that the Petitioners regard it as important as a wetland area and wildlife habitat and the role it plays in protecting Prestatyn from flooding; and further declares that the Petitioners support Prestatyn and District Environmental Association’s proposal to have it designated green open space under the Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Trust to mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to strengthen measures to protect wetlands, public open space and areas at risk of flooding from future development.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000942]

Development on the Riverside Gardens, Erith

Nigel Evans: Showing the generosity of spirit of the House, I call Ms Teresa Pearce.

Teresa Pearce: I am extremely grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I wish to present a petition on behalf of the members of the Friends of Riverside Gardens Erith group and other residents of the London borough of Bexley who support its campaign. The petitioners oppose plans by Bexley council to sell part of the Riverside gardens to developers, so that a tower block of flats can be built on the only riverside green space in Erith. The petitioners want the Riverside gardens to be designated as a town green, so that the only
	Thames riverside open space in Bexley is preserved, and they have my full support. The petition has 1,440 signatures.
	The petition states to the House of Commons states:
	The Petition of residents of the London Borough of Bexley,
	Declares that the petitioners oppose Bexley Council’s Erith Western Gateway plan to allow for blocks of flats to be built on part of the Riverside Gardens in Erith; that the Riverside Gardens were gifted to the people of Erith by the former coal company William Cory and Son for use by the local community; and that the Riverside Gardens should be designated a Town Green and protected as an open green space.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to allow for greater protection for green areas of particular importance to local communities in the Localism Bill, as outlined in his Department’s plan 2011-2015.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000938]

Offshore Gambling and the Horseracing Levy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Matthew Hancock: It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this House on any day, but on a day like today, when the voice of the House has called so loudly, it is an honour indeed.
	I shall speak about an issue that is extremely important to a large part of my constituency: offshore gambling and its relationship with horse racing. When they talk about hacking in Newmarket, they tend to be talking about something rather different to what the House was talking about earlier, because Newmarket is the global centre and headquarters of horse racing. Five thousand people employed in the town get their jobs and livelihoods directly or indirectly from the sport. That means that one third of employment is linked to the sport.
	This is not just an issue for Newmarket, however; it is an issue for our whole country. I want to set out the argument that over the past few years, funding for horse racing has been in crisis and that the problem has in part been that those who make a profit from the sport through gambling have gone offshore to escape contributing to the sport on which they rely. I then want to propose action that the Government should take and set this in the wider context of changes that need to be made. We need to put this sport, which gives so much excitement to so many people, back on an even keel so that its funding is fair and secured for years to come.

Claire Perry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject again in the House. As he knows, my constituency has a number of racing stables. I was recently at Richard Hannon’s stables in Herridge. It is not just the excitement that the sport brings; it is the employment that it provides for thousands of people across the country and the support that those people then bring to the rural community—to the shops and the pubs. It is an unbelievably important industry in so many of our constituencies. I commend my hon. Friend again for raising this important matter.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes a typically passionate intervention. I am talking not just about the beauty and heritage of horse racing, but about jobs—not just those directly involved in the horse racing industry, but those in breeding, training and all the connected livelihoods that support the sport. I will give some examples of the problem. Over the past two or three years, funding of racing through the levy has declined rapidly.

Peter Aldous: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the levy is long past its sell-by date, that all parties should try to come together to find an alternative and that that alternative, as far as offshore business is concerned, must be mandatory, not voluntary?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes some important points. A future for the levy built on funding that is not onshore will be a system built like a house without foundations. Unless we deal with the problem of gambling going offshore before we tackle the wider
	problems of the levy, which is a broken system, we will not be able to build a strong and sustainable future for racing in this country. Over the past few years, the levy has fallen from £110 million to £59 million last year. We were delighted when the Minister announced that this year’s levy would be between £75 million and £80 million, but now, halfway through the season, it looks as though the levy contributions will in fact be less than £60 million—lower than last year—and will be lower still next year. Crucially, that means that prize money in British races is falling fast.

George Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s leadership on this issue, and I would like to align my comments with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). This sport is often referred to as the sport of kings—its more glamorous side is often the side seen by the public—but is it not also a vital part of the wider rural economy? As with so many other industries, its grass roots are essential to its continuation, and in fact the effect on prize money at the bottom is even more severe. Prizes are falling and small trainers and owners are struggling to maintain the industry.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. Prize money is critical to the sport and its future, but it has fallen by almost a half in just the last two years. Also, betting duty—the tax that the Exchequer takes—has fallen from £420 million to £340 million, so it, too, is on the decline. I am a low-tax Tory, but I do not think that we were talking about that.

Simon Hart: What my hon. Friend is suggesting sounds like a good idea, but—he will have to forgive my ignorance here—can he assure me that it will not have an adverse effect on point-to-point racing, which is also a major contributor to local economies and provides great enjoyment to those who do not go to major race meetings?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely, because almost all betting on point-to-point racing is on-course, and one cannot be both offshore and on-course at the same time. Point-to-point racing is a critical part of local and, especially, rural livelihoods. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) would also like me to make the same point in his absence. He cannot be here because he is recovering from a serious illness, but he is an experienced point-to-point rider.
	The levy, prize money and tax revenues are all falling sharply. Why is this? Over the past few years, more and more betting companies have moved offshore. Only two of our 19 biggest bookmakers are now onshore for tax and levy purposes. The previous Government did a deal with the gambling industry—they would not put the levy up, and in return the bookies would stay onshore—but the bookies have gone. I can understand their reason, because once one competitor has moved offshore and does not pay tax or the levy, the competitive pressure on others to move offshore becomes great. I have had many bookies come to me and say, “We would like a level playing field, because it isn’t fair to be driven offshore by competitors who are not paying tax when
	you are.” Today I would like to propose that instead of having what has essentially become a voluntary tax, we create that level playing field by ensuring that all gambling in the UK pays UK tax and the UK levy. Let us also make it a compulsory level playing field.

Richard Fuller: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend’s giving way, as well as the contributions by my hon. Friends from rural constituencies. I represent an urban centre, and he is making some excellent points about levelling the playing field, because another consequence of the levy falling into disrepair has been onshore betting shops siting gambling machines in their premises, which play to people’s addiction when they are gambling. It has had a detrimental impact on horse racing and played to addiction. Is that not another argument why his proposals are so important?

Matthew Hancock: It absolutely is, because bookies who go offshore for tax purposes also go offshore for regulatory purposes, and that means that all the high standards demanded by the British Horseracing Authority are not required of them. There have been instances of poor practice by bookmakers based elsewhere—for instance, in Gibraltar—who fall outside the regulatory practice in the UK. That is not necessarily because the bookie wanted to be outside the regulatory net; rather, they went because of the competitive pressure to reduce their tax and stop paying what had become a voluntary tax and a voluntary levy.
	I come to the action that we need in the narrow sphere of offshore gambling. The case for action is strong, but what can we do? I propose a simple solution: we should make the requirement to pay tax and the levy in the UK part of a gambling licence. It is a simple change, but the consequence would be that no serious bookmaker could avoid what has become a voluntary tax, because they would be liable to the law of the land and would be unable to advertise in the UK. Indeed, they would also be unable to come to the UK, because what is currently tax avoidance would become tax evasion. My proposal is for a straightforward change that is being looked at in many other countries. Indeed, it has been enacted in Ireland, and a similar but bigger change has already been put through in France. In any other walk of life, we would not accept an industry choosing not to pay tax by moving headquarters offshore while continuing operations onshore in precisely the same way as before. Why should we allow the gambling industry to avoid tax in that way, when no one in this room could simply choose not to pay their income tax?

Claire Perry: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, given his wide experience of economic matters, that we have debates in the Chamber and elsewhere all the time on tax evasion in other industries. Indeed, the way in which we tax people whose main sphere of operation is in the UK, and the need to prevent the kind of tax-shifting mechanisms that so many companies use, form a big part of the political discussion. Is he saying that we need another simple mechanism to ensure that an industry that primarily gets its funding and its excitement from the UK market properly pays its taxes in that market?

Matthew Hancock: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. We need to ensure that the foundations on which the funding of racing is built are strong. We can
	then go on to deal with the wider task of replacing the broken levy system, which the racing industry, the gambling industry and the Government do not like, with a commercial arrangement that recognises the contribution that racing makes to the product on which gambling bases its bets.
	I have spoken before in the Chamber about the need for a racing right, and I was delighted to see that that is one of the three proposals in the consultation put forward by the Minister. I urge him to push in that direction. Before he does so, however, it is critical that we solve the problem of offshore gambling. From the romance of the misty gallops on a Newmarket morning through to the excitement of the finishing post, racing is threaded through the history of our country and through the history and culture of my constituency. Let not its future be built on sand; instead—

Peter Aldous: rose—

Matthew Hancock: Instead, I shall give way.

Peter Aldous: My hon. Friend has put forward his proposal very eloquently. Does he agree that any solution must specifically address the issue of betting exchanges?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend raises an important question. Betting exchanges should of course be brought onshore as part of the creation of a level playing field. We must also address the question of what constitutes a bet, for tax and levy purposes. I strongly believe that when two people interact to make a bet, that is a bet. We should go forward on that basis.

Laurence Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. As he knows, I represent Cheltenham race course, which I would argue is the greatest race course on Earth, especially in the national hunt field. He is absolutely right to say that the levy is broken and needs to be replaced. Does he agree that its replacement, whatever it might be, should be based on a commercial arrangement so that there can be no room for manoeuvring or slippage? Should it not be a purely commercial arrangement, perhaps between bookmakers and race courses? Does he have that in mind as the best way forward?

Matthew Hancock: The future of the levy should be based on a commercial arrangement so that the Government do not constantly have to get involved, but that commercial arrangement must be based on the sale of a right to bet on a race. Otherwise, racing will be putting on something for nothing, and the gambling industry will be making a profit—which I support—using the input from racing for which it is not paying. So long as such a commercial arrangement was based on a contract relating to the sale of a right, I would support it.
	Resolving this issue is critical to ensuring that we can build the future of racing on a sustainable foundation, so that this vital sport can be fully and properly funded and the people who run it and work in it can know that it has a strong, long-term future. In the name of racing, and of all those whom I represent and who support me, I urge the Minister to act.

John Penrose: I join other colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on securing this debate on an important issue. It is a timely debate in that, as he mentioned, we are in the middle of a consultation process on how to move forward with the levy. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to say that one of the major issues around the levy is the problem of offshore gambling. He has timed his debate beautifully; I shall try to address the points he raised.
	I agree with everyone who has either spoken or intervened in the debate that it is common currency and commonly agreed that the levy as it currently stands is broken. It does not work. People on all sides—whether they are involved in the gambling industry or in racing—are pretty united in their criticism of the levy. The solutions they propose, however, are quite divergent, which is part of the political problem I face. I think that everyone is united at least in their critique of it. People often make three or four points, but they all revolve around the issue that my hon. Friend raised several times—that we need to create a level playing field. It is essential to do that.
	The current levy fails to deliver a level playing field in a number of ways. It can be seen, first, in the comparison between onshore and offshore betting, as rightly and eloquently set out by my hon. Friend. I would not dream of disagreeing with his analysis of the problem; it is self-evidently true, and it is a problem that, I think, has grown steadily as the migration from onshore to offshore has taken place over the last five or more years.
	The levy also fails to create a level playing field—in the minds of many, at least—between classic traditional bookmakers and betting exchanges. It would be wrong for the Government to try to play favourites between either of those two parts of the gambling industry. As a free-market Tory, I think that would be particularly wrong, but from the point of view of the levy, it is important to avoid any inbuilt bias one way or another between bookmakers or exchanges. At the moment, because these are two different kinds of businesses—they operate on a different kind of business model, with betting exchanges being much higher-volume and lower-margin organisations than traditional bookmakers—there is a great deal of disquiet about the absence of a level playing field between those different kinds of business within the gambling industry.
	It would also be fair to say that the way in which the levy is currently set up and the levy board is required to operate is almost guaranteed to create an adversarial relationship between bookmaking or gambling in general and the racing industry. That cannot be helpful. If we could get the two sides to co-operate, we could achieve a unanimity of purpose in terms of trying to grow the total amount of interest in, and betting on, horse racing. With an adversarial relationship, it is extremely difficult for such productive discussions to take place.

Andy Slaughter: I do not want to take much time out of the Minister’s response, but many of my constituents work for Betfair, which is based in my constituency. I know that the Minister has said some warm words about Betfair, which is voluntarily paying £6 million to the levy and is on record as saying
	that it believes the whole industry should contribute either to the levy or to whatever replaces it. I was a little concerned to hear the Minister say that there might be a distinction to be drawn between online firms and traditional bookmakers. It would be useful if he could put it on the record that the Government have no intention to make the customers of online betting firms such as Betfair subject to the levy, as some parts of the industry have indicated that they should be.

John Penrose: I am very happy to repeat to my previous comments that it was extremely responsible, and extremely welcome, of Betfair to decide to make a voluntary contribution to the levy. That was a very responsible reaction from the company. I also echo the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in that I too wish that more offshore organisations of any kind would follow Betfair’s lead and behave in a similarly responsible fashion. As for whether people using betting exchanges should or should not pay the levy, that is precisely what we are in the middle of consulting on, so it would be rather premature for me to prejudge that. I know that organisations like Betfair and other betting exchanges are making strong representations as part of the consultation, which will, of course, be listened to extremely carefully for precisely that reason.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk mentioned, we are in the middle of a consultation. We have ended a pre-consultation and are now digesting the results before starting an official consultation on the levy, which will be more broadly based. I shall quickly sketch out the three options under consideration.
	The first option would involve relatively little change to the current levy, but would have the important benefit of removing politicians from the decision-making process. I cannot claim that that option offers to fix some of the other issues, such as that of offshore betting, but the requirement for extensive political lobbying from both sides would be reduced. That would be a step, although only a partial one, in the right direction. The suggestion has drawn relatively limited comments and contributions from both sides of the debate, but it is at least an option.
	The second option, which I think my hon. Friend mentioned in passing, is effectively a voluntary or contractual arrangement between gambling and horse racing, along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who represents Cheltenham race course, an important part of the jump racing organisation. That option would involve a contractual arrangement between racing and the gambling industry, in which politicians would, by definition, have no direct involvement. We might help to broker the discussions leading to it, but it would be a private contractual deal, although the Gambling Commission might then require both sides to be party to the arrangement in order to be granted a gambling licence. That would provide back-up.
	The third option on which we are consulting is the betting right, or racing right, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk suggested. That option is widely desired in the racing industry, although for perhaps obvious reasons the gambling industry is a great deal more concerned about it, and it has been sketching out the reasons for that concern in some detail, as is only fair and proper.
	I want to place on record that, as part of our pre-consultation arrangements, the Association of British Bookmakers has proposed an interesting fourth option, which we shall unveil in due course. It would be improper to breach the association’s confidence in that regard, but we will publish its proposal as another alternative. I mention that purely to illustrate that there is a great deal of involvement, engagement and creative thinking on all sides about how to square the difficult circle of fixing the levy in a way that will be sustainable and stable, that will provide a source of income that is fair to both the gambling industry and the racing industry, and that will be a stable solution for a long time to come—stable not only economically but politically, so that it will not require endless political intervention that would be regarded by other sports as alien and unexpected.
	On my hon. Friend’s point about offshore gambling, I am delighted to be able to provide some breaking news. Tomorrow, a written ministerial statement will be tabled in the House—I trust that I am not breaking parliamentary rules by pre-announcing it in the House, as I cannot be accused of ignoring the House of Commons. I am delighted to announce that we intend to move, as fast as possible, towards a system that will, to a great extent, fix the problem of offshore betting. We will switch away from the current system, which has driven many bookmakers offshore for entirely understandable and logical commercial reasons, to one based on point of consumption rather than point of production. That rather arcane phrase means that anybody based anywhere in the world who wants to sell gambling services of any kind—this applies more broadly than to horse race betting alone—to any consumer of gambling services based in the UK, will in future have to have a Gambling Commission licence.
	That gives rise to a number of important changes in the current arrangements. As I said earlier, it will apply not just to horse race betting—although it will obviously have implications for that—but to a far broader range of activities. It will apply to online poker, online roulette, and all the other gambling services that are provided. What is vital is that it will increase the amount of consumer protection for any punters in the United Kingdom who use those services. At present, those who use an online gambling service provided by a UK-based company already regulated by the Gambling Commission can be pretty sure that it is a reputable company which is properly looked after, and that they are therefore protected to the full extent of the law. A provider based offshore may also be regulated by a reputable jurisdiction, but it may not be. It is extremely hard to know where some of the websites are based, and it is just possible that someone might find that he was gambling with the equivalent of Arthur Daley Gambling, based off Tripoli, and that as a result he had very little consumer protection. We aim to fix that,

Matthew Hancock: I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement, which will come as a huge relief to the racing world. I am also surprised and delighted by the speed with which I have received a response in policy terms, and by the Minister’s recognition of the pressure that exists. Will he tell us how much he thinks the reform will raise, and what impact it will have on the levy?

John Penrose: I am afraid that I cannot do that, much as I would like to, for a couple of reasons. We are dealing first with consumer protection, and reform of the horse race betting levy will be a subsidiary issue. However, as my hon. Friend knows, we have stated explicitly that some of the three options in our pre-consultation document will require primary legislation in order to be feasible, and that will open the door to their feasibility.
	The change that we propose will have other benefits. It will not just improve consumer protection; it will also
	help to level the regulatory playing field in the way that my hon. Friend has requested. It will improve our ability to deal with betting integrity, because it will be easier to capture information about potentially suspicious betting patterns and refer it to the relevant authorities as required.
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

Equality

That the draft Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 316, Noes 233.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	That the draft Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 27 Jun, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 316, Noes 230.

Question accordingly agreed to.